Re: [sig-policy] prop-089: Additional criterion for final /8 allocations
it in the archives, and I can't see the Message-Id: so can't craft a
correct reply. T'would be nice if the mailto: link in the archive page
actually had a correct '?in-reply-to=foo&subject=bar' part...)
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 at 10:21:06 +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
> This is where my real concern lies. David gives a couple of examples of
> a "viable IPv6 deployment" which leaves us with the question of what
> other scenarios could be interpreted as "viable".
>
> I'm concerned that unless we can come up with clear unambiguous
> definitions of what is acceptable here we will put the APNIC staff in
> the very difficult position of having to decide who can have IPv4
> addresses and who can't based on ill-defined criteria. I suspect that
> disgruntled applicants could resort to legal challenges and that's not
> somewhere we want to go.
That was my initial concern, and my first draft of the proposal said
that we would probably have to hash the details out on the policy list
to come up with something that would be acceptable.
But I was advised that I was wrong — that we *could* actually rely on an
element of common sense. With clarifying examples of what 'viable' would
mean for the most common recipients of IP address allocations, I think
that would be perfectly sufficient.
The question of what other scenarios could be interpreted as 'viable' is
not one which should keep us awake at night. If a request comes in from
an unusual type of member who doesn't fit any of the examples, and a
'common sense' answer is not apparent, we could even err on the side of
permissiveness and allow the request. Such exceptions would be
relatively few, and the policy would still have its intended effect,
overall.
> A number of people including me have expressed the view on this list
> and elsewhere that "IPv4 is over, finished...." and I think we should
> recognise this.
I agree with this observation. There's a reason I've been consistently
referring to IPv4 as 'Legacy IP' for a number of years already. But the
problem is that there are still people out there who *don't*, even
though they should know better. Some examples:
http://revk.www.me.uk/2011/02/what-hope-is-there.html
http://revk.www.me.uk/2011/02/quote-of-day-most-cps-have-plenty-of.html
The point of the proposed policy is that for such people, IPv4 address
space will have *already* run out. Because without a viable strategy for
moving to IPv6, they will not be permitted to use any more of the few
remaining Legacy IP addresses to prolong their fantasies.
--
dwmw2