Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
> I agree with Owen here.
I agree that it was appropriate for the chairs to bring the proposal before the community.
As to the content of the proposal, I would make the following observations:
- APNIC, having exhausted their free pool of IPv4 addresses, has a simple "you pay your money, you get your /22 (once)" policy. I suspect it unlikely there would be any value to further IPv4-related policy discussions moving forward.
- Existing IPv6 policy is essentially a simple "you pay your money, you get your /32 or /48 depending on what you need". The definition of "need" seems to have reached consensus some time ago. Allocations beyond /32s or /48s are covered in existing policy and I suspect it unlikely there would be significant value to having the ability to change those policies on a twice-yearly basis.
- We have been told on innumerable occasions that the IPv6 free pool is unlikely to be consumed in the foreseeable future, and even if it is, we have 7 other format specifiers that are (mostly) untouched, so if we ever use up the first format specifier, we can (at least theoretically) resurrect policy definition processes to revise IPv6 allocation policy.
- I believe most folks trying to do business are looking for consistency of policy/process. Having constantly changing policy/process typically results in non-trivial costs as companies have to figure out how those changes affect them and whether or not they want to spend the resources to fight/support those changes.
Given the above and the proposal's suggestion to enable the EC to resurrect the PDP processes as needs warrant, I would not dismiss the proposal out of hand.
Regards,
-drc