Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
>> At the moment there are a number of policy initiatives trying to deal
>> with micro management of the final /8. My feeling is that we should
>> try to have a very simple set of policies that reinforce the need to
>> start adopting IPv6 as soon as possible.
> Agreed.
here i disagree. imiho, dorking with ipv4 policy will do little to
advance ipv6 deployment and would smell a lot like abuse of business
practices. the social contract is not to have the IRs tell us how to
run our businesses in order to get address space from them.
if we want to advance ipv6, make sure v6 allocation policies are easy
and liberal, tell the ec to make ipv6 pricing low, and sit back and wait
for folk to feel the squeeze and to see that obvious path forward.
>> I believe that the current /8 policy with a single /22 for each
>> applicant coupled with additional space from the IPv6 transition /10
>> that we currently have is a pretty reasonable situation and that
>> additional tweaking of the policies will simply serve to confuse
>> applicants.
>
> I think the last /8 policy we have at the moment is about as simple as
> it can get, which is just what we need. For those that relish
> complexity there'll be no shortage of it at the point we're using the
> last /8!
>
>> It's natural for us to want to do something here but differentiating
>> between allocations and assignments will at best make a difference of
>> a few days or weeks to the final exhaustion date.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what else we can do - or what problem we're
> actually trying to solve with prop-81. Either way, it's really of no
> consequence.
>
>> The message they need to start hearing now is that when we get to the
>> final /8, IPv4 addresses are effectively exhausted and they need to
>> get on with IPv6.
>>
>> That's why I'm not in favour of this proposal.
>
> And I don't favour it either, for much the same reasons you've
> expressed.
agree with all this
randy