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

Gert and all,

  Nice bit of deflection/pigionholing I must say.  But yes the
subject line is with finding a consensus policy, however that
consensus if such exists, is measured, for determining what is
now questionably perceived to be the last /8.  So far I prefer
Leo's earlier suggestions as such at least provides for the
possibility of some future recovery of unused IPv4 addresses
in a round about way.

Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:46:36PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Gert Doering wrote:
> >
> > > Please stick to the topic of *this* discussion.  Even with reclamation
> > > efforts, eventually we will reach the last /8,
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Assuming reduction of address space consumption by mandating NAT,
> > I can't understand how the last /8 could be reached before IPv4
> > will be replaced by something not likely to be IPv6.
> >
> > Could you elaborate?
>
> There is no mandate to use NAT in the RIPE region (and I think that this
> is a good thing, as NAT might be useful, but overall it takes away freedom
> from the Internet users, and this shouldn't be forced on anybody).
>
> If the RIPE community wants to force NAT on people, well, they can of
> course change the policy.  But in the policy as it is now, there is
> nothing that can force NAT on anybody.   Given this, and given the
> growth of Internet in less-developed regions, yes, it is very likely
> that we'll reach the last /8.  And soon.
>
> > > and *this* discussion is
> > > only covering the rules for the last /8.
> >
> > I don't think it off topic to discuss whether there will be the
> > last /8 or not.
>
> By decree of the WG chair it is off-topic *in this discussion thread*.
>
> It is not off-topic on the list per se, but to keep some semblance of
> structure, *this* thread needs to focus on a very specific question.
>
> > It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the
> > last /8 to say there won't be the last /8.
>
> Yes.  But this specific discussion thread is about a very specific aspect
> of the proposal.  Since we have different last-/8-Proposals on the table,
> we're trying to merge them into a common proposal, which you can then be
> opposed to.
>
> But please do this in a new discussion thread with a new Subject: line.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827