[ppml] Policy Proposal: Global Policy for the Allocationof theRemaining IPv4 Address Space

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi,

This is about the same type of comments I did in the last LACNIC meeting
(May) when this proposal was presented.

1) You can never be fair with different regions fixing a distribution of
addressing space that doesn't correlate to something "fixable", instead of
looking into utilization.

2) You can't decide up-front that 5 /8s make sense for this, especially
because being a global policy they need to be approved with the same text in
all the 5 RIRs, and the time may take to agree on that, may be 25 /8 are no
longer available. So I suggested to use a formula for N.

3) I think this type of policies, if approved in all the regions, which I
doubt, will be against the regions that promote them by different reasons,
for example, "granting" them more time to keep going with IPv4 while the
rest of the world will be moving to IPv6.

4) Last, but not least, I'm against policies that try to change the natural
trends of existing allocations. They don't make sense. Time is short and we
should, instead of wasting time, use ALL those extra time-slices that each
one of us has, in moving to IPv6.

I've indeed analyzed all this kind of policy proposals and other ways of
mitigating the IPv4 exhaustion in a paper that you can find at
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3004.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand at cable.comcast.com>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:27:36 -0400
> Para: Roque Gagliano <rgaglian at antel.net.uy>
> CC: <ppml at arin.net>
> Conversación: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Global Policy for the Allocationof
> theRemaining IPv4 Address Space
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Global Policy for the Allocationof
> theRemaining IPv4 Address Space
> 
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Roque Gagliano
>> 
>>> When we hit the IPv4 exhaustion point, some organizations will be
>>> unable to obtain the IPv4 addresses that they need to
>> continue growing
>>> the network. This policy propsal brings that point forward so that
>>> IPv4 exhaustion will happen sooner. They propose that 25 /8's be
>>> reserved for this special endgame.
>> 
>> 25 x /8 is a proposition, we can come out of this discussion
>> with 20, 15 x /8s, etc.
> 
> This is one major issue with the current policy proposal.
> It neither defines the **value** of N (Nx5 is the floor) nor
> the **process** to decide a value for N.
> 
> The way it is written, this will be the equivalent of
> signing a blank check. This proposal would be more
> palatable if it were to be rewritten with a specific
> value of N. Say N=1, N=1.5, N=2,...
> 
> Then we could understand and discuss the practical effect of this
> proposal,
> ie how much 'waste' (or delayed used) this introduce and how much
> to the left does this push the cliff...
> 
> As a side note, this proposal is revisiting one of the major tenet
> of IP allocation: demonstated need. IMHO, this is setting a
> fairly dangerous precendent, as it could be reuse in each region
> by saying: let's re-divide whatever the local RIR has equaly among its
> member...
> 
>    - Alain.
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.