[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2

On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 20:31 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Another good reason to change the policy is recent development
> of NAT technology.
> 
> Recent NAT even allows for end to end transparency that there
> is no reason for old entrants not to deploy NAT to reduce address
> consumption to leave room for new entrants.
> 
> 						Masataka Ohta
> 
> PS
> 
> If we wisely allocate the final /8s, we will be ready to allocate
> class E and part of class D for unicast before we run out of
> classes A, B and C.
> 
> That is, we don't need IPv6.
> 

Would you care to share a bit of whatever you're smoking ? :)

I'm afraid the transition to v6 will be well on its way by the time the
NAT traversal workarounds that are floating around in various drafts
make their way through IETF and into the new generation of HW/SW
required to support it. Industry-wide standardisation is what counts in
this area. The next forklift upgrade of software and/or firmware that
providers make to their access-layer and CPE's will most likely have
IPv6 already. I'm not saying that v4 NAT won't play a certain role
during the transition-phase, but I don't consider it's a viable
long-term solution.

The only argument in favor of changing policies at this stage is IMHO
to, if possible, be able to dodge accusations of anti-competitive
practises against new entrants. All that is required for that is to
reserve a relatively small block from which everyone who qualify for
a /32 or larger PA v6-block gets for example a /22 v4-block if they have
no prior v4 allocation. Everything else that has been suggested are
policy tweaks which aim to benefit certain types of operators, but they
make no significant difference to the bigger picture.


//per