Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
people joining these camps, but I'll not discuss this here since I'll end
up calling people names and that's not constructive.
Camp #1: We need more IP addresses now, we have IP addresses, let's dish
it out. We'll run out eventually anyway and the sooner we run out, the
sooner we'll stop arguing about IPv4 adoption and just move on.
Camp #2: We are running out of IP addresses and we should put it on drip
feed and assign it only to "worthy" users (for some definition of worthy,
currently "new APNIC members"). This will kickstart the existing IPv4
userbase to adopt IPv6, and allow new entities to continue communicating
with the IPv4 world for years to come.
Let's lay out the facts and assumptions here. In fact, there's only one
fact, the rest are assumptions
Fact
- IPv4 free pool is running out
Assumption
- Everybody will be dual-stack/IPv6 enabled in x years
- New membership rate will not grow significantly even if this is the only
way to get new IP addresses
- People's behaviour will not change once IPv4 runs out
- Ad nauseum.
I see validity in both Camp #1 and Camp #2. I do _not_ see validity in
Camp #1.5 (reserve the /9 and dish out the other /9) - that's junkie
mentality. We do that and we'll be back in 6 months splitting the /9 into
2 /10s, until we're really out.
For the Camp #2 people, we need to better define the meaning of worthy -
people with AUD$1180 a year to spare for a membership is not a good
definition.
My 2¢
On 1/23/11 2:01 PM, "Matthew Moyle-Croft" <mmc at internode dot com dot au> wrote:
>
>On 23/01/2011, at 3:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>>> I agree with Randy - extending the sugar rush now to appease a few
>>>providers who haven't made the effort to even start providing IPv6 to
>>>customers is rewarding the wrong kind of behaviour. It's just going
>>>to allow then to justify delaying IPv6 rollout to their customer bases
>>>rather than accepting that resources are finite.
>>>
>> Avoid appeasing them now so that they have to pay more for it later.
>>Interesting attitude. Not particularly useful in the grand scheme of
>>things.
>
>As opposed to allowing them to continue avoiding IPv6 transition by
>giving them more IPv4 space now? Money, apparently, talks, so by
>driving the cost and difficulty of obtaining space up in the future,
>it'll encourage transition earlier. Giving away space now because of a
>dodgy assumption that previous behaviour is going to be accurate post
>final /8 is not going to drive transition - it'll delay it and place at
>risk industry transition by doing so. I'd be pretty angry if this space
>was just dropped on the front of people's CGNAT boxes by people who don't
>have any useful IPv6 deployment.
>
>MMC
>* 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