Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Hi David,
Thank you so much for your reply. I try to answer to your mail.
From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized dot org>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:14:38 -0700
| On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:48 PM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
| > In IPv4 area, address allocation is ongoing, so I think we need to
| > watch the status, and have to discuss allocation policy as needed.
|
| Not to speak for Randy, but I believe the point is that (to use the tired analogy) the current arrangement of the deck chairs is sufficient and that continuing to shuffle the deck chairs in increasingly Byzantine patterns does not keep the ship floating for any more time and distracts from other useful work that could be done.
I might catch above logic, but I would like to say that in general
terms, there is no perfect policy and need to leave space for
modification.
| > Many people wrote IPv4 was over, however, there is demand for IPv4 address even now.
|
| I don't believe it is a question of whether there is continued demand. Of course there is and this is only going to get ... more interesting as more folks realize that The IPv4 Free Pool Is Gone. The question is whether or not continuing to shift the ground under people is beneficial to actually getting real work done. I suspect having a stable playing field is far more likely to facilitate actual work that an environment where the rules change every 6 months.
Actually, recently, there are only a few policy proposal for IPv4 in
APNIC maybe because people start to shift to IPv6. I think no need to
close IPv4 policy discussion since if no demand for IPv4 policy charge,
we'll have less IPv4 policy proposal.
| > In IPv6 area, we will have some topics that we don't have now, such as
| > modification of current allocation policy,
|
| In my view, allocation policies typically do not need to change unless there are constraints that need to be addressed. What constraint needs to be addressed in IPv6?
There will be some case that current allocation policy can not handle,
such as new technology implementation. In the past, new allocation
criteria for 6rd (RFC5969) was proposed, and now, we're discussing
to remove multihoming criteria in IPv6 allocation.
| > allocation policy for outside of 2000::/3
|
| I do not believe this is appropriate for consideration by the RIRs (at least until the IETF defines what format specifiers outside of 2000::/3 actually mean).
Here, I want to say that same as current IPv6 allocation policy, I
think it should be RIRs to discuss and draft allocation policy for new
space defined by IETF.
| > DB restoration issues, DNS reverse delegation issues and so on.
|
| Randy's proposal is specifically related to "IP address policy".
In the APNIC policy-sig not only the IP address policy, but also whois
DB attribute issue, reverse DNS lame delegation issue, etc. has
discussed. I think prop-103 includes to stop these proposals since
these were discussed under the current PDP.
| > And moreover, I think current bottom-up policy process, anyone can
| > propose any policies is necessary. (but I do not mean discussion
| > about PDP is unnecessary. We should discuss how the policy process in
| > AP region should be in the future.)
|
| In "bottom-up" organizations like the IETF, when a topic of interest is identified, there is a process that can be invoked to create a temporary body to address that topic. Once the topic is addressed, the temporary body goes away. This avoid the problem of permanent bureaucracies trying to figure out ways to justify their existence, usually by coming up with increasingly complicated 'solutions' to bizarre edge cases (it is _extremely_ hard to kill bureaucracies).
Here, I would like to say about discussion organized by APNIC EC
described in prop-103. In the IETF, anyone can write and submit
internet draft, not filtered by somebody, I believe.
I'm sorry if my explanation was insufficient or I misunderstood your
concern.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki