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

"It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the last /8 to say there won't be the last /8."

Really?  IMHO these are two very different conversations - one is an "if", the other is a "when".  In a case like this - as long as it is possible, it is worth being prepared for  ...

(And prolonging IPv4 will probably just delay its  successor (IPv6 or not) even longer, meaning we would still have a last /8 discussion - just later on ... And that is assuming such a delaying-policy was even feasible/successful)


FWLIW - I also disagree WRT IPv6 not being the successor to IPv4, but that is _also_ a separate conversation ... 


/TJ

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>

Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:46:36 
To: Gert Doering<gert at space.net>
Cc: Jeffrey A. Williams<jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>; Nick Hilliard<nick at inex.ie>; Randy Bush<randy at psg.com>; Marco Hogewoning<marcoh at marcoh.net>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net<address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2


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?

> 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.

It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the
last /8 to say there won't be the last /8.

							Masataka Ohta