Andy, I believe:- An unallocated IPv4 address is no use to anyone, especially when there is demand for it;
- APNIC should distribute the resources it receives from IANA, not store them;- There is no obvious virtue to allocating IPv4 addresses later rather than sooner - an appropriate use of an address is valid whenever it happens.
It's been 2.5 years since the final /8 policy was approved, and since then there have been no other clear arguments arising in the industry for the preservation of addresses, other than the intent of catering for new businesses which is fully maintained in the /9 proposed in prop-091.
Hopefully no one will want an IPv4 address in 5 years time, and so the usefulness of IPv4 addresses will diminish over time - that is, IPv4 addresses are of most use to the user community right now, and they are not likely to be later.
And as for further whittling of the reserved space in future policies - well, given the final /8 policy is going to be active by October this year, I don't think there is a lot of time to do that!
Regards, David At 01:24 PM 21/01/2011, Andy Linton wrote:
There are two groups that the last /8 policy has to work for: 1) Those requesting addresses for the first time. They will be operating under a regime where they are starting with a clean slate and they will be deploying IPv6 and IPv4 together. Anyone who starts a new business where they plan only to use IPv4 really doesn't understand the realities of the world. 2) Those who have IPv4 space already. And this is the group this proposal is written for. This group has had many years notice that IPv4 is running out and they've still got their heads in the sand. Let's assume we adopt this proposal and we begin to talk about the last /9 provisions. I can envisage a similar proposal appearing just before the last /9 provisions come into force proposing we split the last /9 into two /10 blocks and so on until there really is nothing left. I'd like to see this resource preserved for future use and I don't support changing the current last /8 policy. We can look at this again when the last /8 policy has been operating for some time and relax the limit of a single /22 per entity if we feel that will help with IPv6 deployment but if we adopt this proposal now this now we'll have no reserve capacity to play with.* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *_______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy