[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

On Jul 6, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Per Heldal wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 11:12 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> Hello WG,
>>
>> I want to continue the discussion about the Final /8 proposals
>> (2008-06 and 2009-04). The responses to my last question ("Do we  
>> (this
>> working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?")
>> were 100% negative: We don't want IPv6 related requirements in the
>> Final /8 policy.
>
> I think APNIC has got it mostly right. To reserve some space for
> transition-services is the only suggestion I've seen that can have a
> lasting effect throughout the transition period.  Everything else has
> been/is about skewing the balance to change who gets most out of the
> remaining chunks.
>
> Keep it simple. One single fixed-size block for each new registrant  
> that
> qualify for or already has a v6 block, and no prior v4 allocation.
>
> A whole /8 for might be more than necessary for this though. How
> many /20 - /22 -size allocations does RIPE-NCC make each year where  
> the
> registrant has no prior allocation?
>
> The intention of such a policy is IMHO primarily to protect new
> innovative players from abuse (extortion) by the V4 powerhouses. Once
> established they should seek expansion elsewhere (v6) or compete for  
> the
> same resources as everyone else. One-size-fits all is therefore
> appropriate, as it would be near impossible for the NCC to
> differentiate.


This more or less makes sense, you might define these blocks as "PI"  
to circumvent the whole membership discussion and wether or not a  
reciver of such block should need to be PI.

MarcoH