[address-policy-wg] RE: IPv6 allocations for 6RD

On 1 dec 2009, at 23:02, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>
>> 3.5. Conservation and Administrative Ease
>> Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space,
>> historical evidence shows that what now seems infinit might one day
>> turn out to become a scarce resource, Address policies should avoid
>> unnecessarily wasteful practices of such resources. Requests for
>> address space should be supported by appropriate documentation and
>> stockpiling of unused addresses should be avoided. Assignment of
>> address space based on the sole argument of administrative
>> ease is not permitted. Examples of this include, but are not limited
>> to, ease of billing administration and network management.
>
> I strongly agree with the concern that v6 addresses could be  
> depleted quickly.
>
> This problem will never be solved appropriately until you impose  
> fees for addresses that increase with the size of the block being  
> requested. What you seem to be learning, the hard way, is that  
> charging nothing for addresses requires you to ration the address  
> space using highly subjective and purely verbal, unquantifiable  
> criteria. Such as, the term "unnecessarily wasteful" which manages  
> to be both tautological and unprecise. Or the term "administrative  
> ease"; ok, after that becomes a policy no one will admit that they  
> are requesting addresses for administrative ease but will that  
> actually alter their request?
>
> Appropriately graduated annual fees enforce conservation AND  
> reclamation while relieving the allocator of engaging in these  
> verbal and categorical games


Hi Milton,

There is already a coupling between charging and allocation size:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging2010.html

It might not be enough, but then again if we run out policies will be  
modified eventually like it happend with v4...from /8 to /21 initial  
in just 30 years.

MarcoH