Re: [sig-policy] Fwd: Re: [nznog] Prop 94
> Thanks for clarifying Brian's point. I see this policy gives the
> impression of giving out /22 allocations too generously by not requiring
> renumbering.
>
> My concern is actually the other way around, that keeping the current
> renumbering criteria after the final /8 makes initial allocation
> conditions more strict than today.
>
> Today, if a new LIR has existing address holdings from its upstream IR,
> APNIC can allocate more than a /22 to compensate for the loss of
> renumbering.
>
> This will no longer be the case after the final /8. For example, if a
> new LIR's existing address holding is a /21, they must return this /21
> in exchange for a /22 allocation from APNIC.
>
> This doesn't make much sense when you request for an allocation to
> receive an additional IPv4 space.
>
> Do people have thoughts about this?
>
>
I recall some of the discussions that lead to the current final /8
policy and I think the core idea was that the /22 that each entity got
was for the specific purpose of enabling IPv6 deployment and integration.
New users should use this to give them a presence in both the IPv4 and
IPv6 dual stack environments that will need to operate for some time.
Existing users should not use this IPv4 space for business as usual
deployments but specifically as IPv6 transition space.
I expect I'll have comments about the size of the global routing table.
If IPv6 growth happens as we think/hope/expect it too the the combined
tables will have to grow to accommodate the IPv6 routes and the IPv4
tables might grow by up to one prefix per APNIC member because of this.
There's simple no escaping the fact that routers carrying full routes
are going to get bigger before they can get smaller.
I believe that we should have very few restrictions on this final /22
delegation. It's the last one that each applicant can get and I think
that the only condition that should apply is that APNIC ensures that
each applicant has an IPv6 allocation (either they already have one or
they are given one with this request).
APNIC and the other RIRs will have little they can do in terms of
sanctions if someone fails to renumber. They can't refuse to give them
any more IPv4 space as by definition there is none and for most they'll
have all the IPv6 space they're likely to need.
Making policy that has little or no prospect of being enforced seems
pointless. For this reason I think that a number of the policies before
us at APNIC 31 run the risk of trying to micro manage this transition in
ways that won't succeed.
We should all look at the proposals and ask ourselves what we can
realistically achieve together rather than try to cover all the little
corner cases. Proposals that seek to try to prolong the agony continue
to send a mixed message we should avoid.
We are at a crossroads. The last five /8s will be allocated this week to
each of the RIRs and by the time we meet again at APNIC 32 we'll be
allocating addresses from those blocks.
We need to provide clear leadership to our wider community that says the
old order has finished and the way ahead is to add IPv6 and run a dual
stack environment.