Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
> the trade-off here is simple. there is a last reserve for our children.
> we do not really know how it will be needed or used, so we made what we
> think is a prudent reserve. now we have the forces of greed wanting a
> week's worth of sugar rush by breaking into the stash and swallowing
> half of it (and, as andy says, then the next half, zeno's paradox)
> before it we even reach the point of first needed it at all.
>
One man's idea of prudent reserves is another man's idea of lunacy.
One man's idea of lunacy is another man's great vision.
So, let's dismiss with the invective and name calling. Let's not use
analogies to try and portray opposing sides as greedy drug addicts
or whatever other form of villain.
There are three facts here:
1. IPv4 address space is finite and we are approaching the end
of the free pools.
2. We do not know what needs will exist in the future and it may
be prudent to set aside some amount of space in preparation
for those needs.
3. Space set aside for unknown future needs that is never used
until after all needs are in the past is space wasted. Obviously
to the extent we have that, we can say it was not prudent to
keep that space in reserve.
Unfortunately, balancing available resources between facts 2
and 3 is the tricky part. Currently, the community has come to
consensus that for APNIC that means setting aside an
entire /8. There is good data to suggest that it might be more
prudent to reduce that set-aside to a /9. If you have good data
to show that a /8 is more likely to be needed, let's see it.
If all you have is name calling and invective, then, may I suggest
you re-add me to your procmail filter.
Owen