<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Feb 22, 2024, at 07:17, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/02/2024 02:14, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:EC946349-39F6-43DC-9698-8D9DD7206613@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<clip>
<div>
<div>Yes, YOU made those decisions for YOUR network. Now you are
trying to force those decisions (specifically deployment of
CGNAT) onto others through policy. No sale here.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, these decisions are made taking into account the reality of the
things, or do you think it is fine to completely disregard the IPv4
exhaustion and keep assigning scarce IPv4 resources from the waiting
list in total luxury to those who are able to go to the market and
transfer more addresses in other to fulfill their decision to not do
CGNAT ? Do you think there is any fairness on this ? Or even forcing
this method to make the waiting list more difficult to those who
need even more as a way to force - who knows who - to deploy IPv6 ?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think each network operator needs to consider the reality as it applies to their network. <div><br></div><div>I think that the sooner IPv4 becomes too expensive to deploy on new elements other than v6 transition, the better for everyone. </div><div><br></div><div>As such, the important thing is for the waitlist to be a very slow source of addresses. The easiest way to ensure that is to place as few limitations on who can acquire space from the waitlist. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p>I cannot agree there is reasonableness in keep allowing
organizations who already have any size of allocation to receive
in whatever is left for the waiting list if they have more
conditions to transfer further IPv4 space should they require.
This is the fairness which is sought in the policy development
process.</p></div></blockquote><div>Then we can agree to disagree and that’s fine. It’s been obvious for a long time that you and I have different perspectives and differing opinions on these matters. </div><div><br></div><div>I cannot agree that it is fair to prevent existing users from having an equal shot at available address space with new entrants and I think reservating IPv4 for “future use” to the detriment of “current need” is wholly unfair. </div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div></div><div><br></div></body></html>