I second MMC's concern.
The key assumption and justification for this proposal is the annual account growth forecast, and your second key assumption is the time for complete migration to v6. Behaviour generally changes when a critical resource becomes scarce – when applying for a new membership becomes the only way to get new IP addresses (because your upstream has run out of IP addresses), you will see a lot more members which can deplete this pool ahead of your estimates. Or more optimistically, perhaps this will accelerate the adoption of v6.
If the current final /8 policy begins to have a negative impact to the Internet community in AP, then we should absolutely review the and amend the final /8 policy. However I do not believe that now is the right time to accelerate depletion of the final /8.
I do not support prop-091
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode dot com dot au>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:20:32 +0800
To: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab at lahai dot com>
Cc: APNIC Policy SIG List <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
I don't support this proposal. I don't see the point in deliberately running out the IPv4 space earlier for short term gain. The fact that this space may not be allocated for a long time doesn't seem important. It's the last lot, let's treat it as precious and leave some for those who will need it in small quantities.
On 20/01/2011, at 7:22 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs