Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
Just commenting on some of the points that have been discussed
recently regarding this proposal:
1. "We also don't know how exactly the industry is going to react to
this." (Terry)
That is certainly a valid point, and as I discuss in another email
that means that "good" and "bad" behaviours could emerge. So this
point may be a reason to defer consideration of this type of proposal
to a later meeting, or it may be thought that the potential change of
behaviours may happen so quickly that the decision needs to be made
now - I'll leave that for the members to decide when they discuss
this proposal in Hong Kong.
Another problem I see is that that the more addresses that APNIC
reserve in the final policy, the more APNIC is asked to decide
between what are "good" and "bad" uses of those addresses, and I'm
not sure that it is desirable for APNIC to have to make more
judgements of that type than is absolutely necessary.
2. "keeping it in the public trust is conservation." (Randy)
Only if there is continual governance of those resources. I believe
that if APNIC is going to deliberately withhold resources when there
is clear public demand for them, then APNIC at least should be
reviewing regularly that it is still appropriate to continue to
withhold those resources.
Please consider this proposal as part of such a process of regular review!
3. "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." (Raphael)
I suppose the real question of the proposal is "What is the right
size to reserve for Camp 2?", and, I've as stated above, consider it
to be a check on whether a full /8 is really required, especially
that given the recorded membership rates to date suggest it could be
too large. So the intent of the proposal is to ensure all resources
are used appropriately - reserved where there is good purpose to do
so, and otherwise distributed as per APNIC's standard role.
Regarding the possibility that this might be the start of a process
of whittling the final /8 away to nothing, it' certainly not what I'm
intending, and I'd be very surprised if it happened. Having said that
though, I'll say again that I believe that continuous review of
holdings is appropriate, and if the membership believes at a future
time that it would be better for the resources to be distributed than
to be held further, then that will be the members' choice.
4. "and there ain't gonna be no more. period. get over it." but
"there is a last reserve for our children." (Randy)
I want my children to only see IPv4 addresses in the Internet history
books, along with X.25, GOSIP, etc. and asking the question "Why did
it take you so long to move from 32-bit addresses?" :-)
Regards, David