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

Hi Peter,

...

> before diving into these or before selecting different options, shouldn't
> the overall goals of, say, "fairness" and "sustainability" be broken down
> into a tangible set of criteria against which the solutions could be evaluated?
> This would also ease the assessment of potential subversion tactics.

I agree with your comment, to think about "fairness" and "sustainability". 
But the latter, IHMO contradicts with Randy's comment, that IPv4 has no future 
(to which I agree also).

In the first of Sander's questions, there were no one favouring IPv6 
requirements with IPv4 allocations, so that's out of scope right now, UNLESS 
we're reopening that topic again (which I won't do).

What's left over, is to look into the "fairness", which is achieved partly, 
that I request and monitor, that everybody still requesting IPv4 plays by the 
rules: For allowing some "sustainability" for a couple of years, everybody has to 
deploy multiplexing techniques for newly allocated adress ranges.

[This might introduce IPv6 requirements through a backdoos, as deploying 
multiplexing techniques may prove as expensive as migrating to IPv6, or even 
more.]

Regards,
	Andreas
-- 

--
Andreas Schachtner

afs Holding GmbH
communication technologies & solutions
http://afs-com.de/

Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner
HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090707/c6865aeb/attachment.sig>