Re: [sig-policy] prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8
On 17/02/2010, at 4:57 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
>
>>> Like it or not, the current APNIC assignment policy and the transfer policy allow /24 delegations.
>> In terms of the final /8, I do not believe this aspect of APNIC policies for transfers and
>> assignments should be replicated.
>
> The facts are, unless some one propose to change, the /24 minimum transfer size
> will remain in effect in the final /8 phase.
>
I'm not seeing that as an issue.. Are you worried that those unscrupulous users of IP address space would take a /22 from the last /8 policy and the transfer it in chunks of /24 to people? Please clarify why the /24 transfer size in the final /8 is a problem?
>>> But that's exactly what we are doing currently, allowing assignments.
>> But at the final /8, you shouldn't. You should be very conservative in your work, and the work
>> you expect APNIC to do on dwindling resources (both $$ and number resources).
>
> Sounds like you are more cautious about the costs than me, do you think matching a block of
I'm realistic about costs, efforts, benefits, and desired outcome.
> IPv6 addresses to every IPv4 account holder for free will also cost $$ and number resources?
>
Are you trying to draw some parallel between IPv6 simplification proposal and subsequent policy change (now known as Kickstart IPv6) and prop-081??
Lets pretend there is a parallel there. In actual fact I think an on-line automated form that allows a member to quickly self service their organisation into an IPv6 allocation that does not need to take up the time of a APNIC hostmaster saves both effort (and $$) on the part of the Secretariat and the member. But do remember that the motivation for that policy was about IPv6 deployment. I still can't see any viable motivation in prop-081.
>> honestly, no. The last /8 is it. no more. let the people who really know what to do, as enablers,
>> ie the LIRs have the resources to make a broad brush stroke differences while people are
>> scrambling. (btw IXPs should know better too!! That said since IXPs tend to have this grey
>> area of route visibility maybe they should live in 1/8 ;)
>
> What you are suggesting is bordering on unfairness, allowing new LIR applicants but not allowing new multihoming applicants.
What I am suggesting is that the industry will get far better use of those /22 allocations in the last /8 as for use in v6 transition without being chopped up and micromanaged into /24 slices.
(honestly wasn't this already covered in the /8 proposal discussion? I'm sure it was.. )