Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>> 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.
>
The problem with this being that a /32 is actually inadequate for all but the most simple and smaller ISP networks unless you victimize your users with smaller than /48 allocations.
Owen