[address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal

Hi all.

If issues regarding rfc2050 has been discussed before, then please excuse
me. I see that ARIN and LACNIC has discussed rfc2050 conflicts in this
proposal, but I cannot remember that this topic is discussed in the RIPE
region.

This proposal breaks the 80% rule in rfc2050. The proposal mentions the
80% rule, but it does not mention or discuss the fact that this rule is
stated in rfc 2050. The proposal says:

d. Arguments opposing the proposal.
This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 address consumption.

I think conflicts with rfc2050 also should have been listed in the
proposal item d.

--
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
no.telenor

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.
>
> I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
>
> * This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4.
> * It favourises the large ISPs.
> * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told
>   that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one
>   representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns.
>   I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would
>   want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE
>   community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.
>
> And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy
> WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the
> reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this
> proposal".
>
> --
> Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
> no.telenor
>