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

On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:18 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>
>> Let me be more clear. I personally don't think address transfers  
>> will save the world, sharing is difficult for most people, let  
>> alone if the resource in question is getting more and more scarce.
>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but transfers with or without money will  
>> probably not meet any of the fairness requirements we might come up  
>> with and I do think for the sake of it all we might want to try and  
>> keep it a level playing field as long as we can to prevent the  
>> worst case scenario of a netsplit.
>
> What do you think the important fairness requirements are?
>
> Is it sufficient to make sure that every network with IPv6 PI space  
> can also get a small IPv4 PI block with which to talk to the IPv4  
> Internet?  If so, I think that's pretty straightforward: reserve a / 
> 9 or /10 and give out a maximum of /22 or so, one block per  
> multihomed org.
>
> Or do you think we need to attempt to make larger blocks available  
> on some sort of justified need basis?  If so, how do you propose to  
> ration the space to meet your fairness requirements?


I'm thinking about the first option. Give any applicant who can  
justify the need a small specific block to maintain enough  
infrastrcture to be reachable from "the other side", think about  
nameservers, MX hosts and such.

Given the potientially huge numbers I don't think we can cater for an  
access infrastructure, for those you have to go NAT and deploy IPv6.

MarcoH