Re: [sig-policy] Fwd: Re: [nznog] Prop 94
The final /8 is the final /8. The purpose of any policy on how to manage the last /8 is very different any from previous policies on IPv4 distribution. We are not trying to strike the perfect balance between conservation and aggregation and we should not try to cover every possible scenario for every individual case.
The policy managing the last /8 is an attempt to slice up the last chunk of IPv4 addresses in a pragmatic and equitable manner in order to, whilst encouraging the widespread uptake of IPv6. Let's not send mixed messages and let's not be in denial ourselves. Like Andy says, we need to provide clear leadership to the community here.
The sole purpose of the last bits of IPv4 addresses distributed should be to aid the transition to IPv6.
Nurani
On 2 feb 2011, at 00.02, Andy Linton wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> * 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