Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
Disclaimer: the comments below reflect the views of the proposal authors and
have NO link to co-chair's opinion about this proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Jonny,
Thanks for your comments, pls see our comments below:
> I don't see the final /8 as intended specifically to help with v4 to
> v6 transition. Rather it is a way to give *every* LIR one last chance
> to get v4 space - assuming they meet the allocation criteria at that
> point in time. What the LIR does with this last allocation is
> completely up to them - the smart ones will have well progressed v6
> plans. No-one can complain at that point though, as they were all
> treated the same.
>
I admire you as the author of the final /8 policy proposal, I do believe it's
a good policy. Hower, if you confirm that the final /8 doesn't
have the specific intent to help with V6 transition, and only those smart ones will
understand it should be use for V6 transistion, those less smart may or
may not. We'd better make this message clear.
Since many people have the assumption that the final /8 allocation will be
used for V6 transition purpose, that's why during the discussion of prop-078
'Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment',
many people raise concern that Prop-078 serves similiar purpose with the final /8 policy,
and seems dupicated. If it's not the case, we'd better make it clear.
> The point that Terry was making was that if a critical infrastructure
> (*) provider gets to the point of IPv4 exhaustion and only at that
> point realises that they have an IPv4 problem, then they shouldn't
> really be in charge of that infrastructure. This stuff is not hard to
> forecast...
>
Yes, I believe it's easy to forecast, but as well as LIRs, they still have to follow the
80% rule, they can't make extra storage before the final /8 phase.
Also new multihoming & IXP organizations might emerge as wells as new LIRs,
and they need assignments.
> As we get closer to IPv4 address exhaustion it is likely the minimum
> allocation size will reduce making it easier for small multihoming-
> only to obtain an allocation under APNIC policy at that time.
>
If we agree they are eligible to receive IPv4 addresses when closer to exhaustion,
why do we make their eligibility rely on the uncertainty of size reduction.
Also the requirements for assignments and allocations are some how different.
Regards