[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3

On 24 Aug 2009, at 21:04, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Most people preferred option b: All requests are downscaled by a  
> certain factor
> Some people preferred option a: Everyone gets one (and only one)  
> fixed size block
> Because most people preferred option b, let's discuss some of the  
> details to see if we can make that work. If we are going to  
> downscale address space requests, how should we do that? Some issues:

Slightly rephrasing Sander's questions ..


- Do we want a maximum allocation size ?

Maybe, although certainly not to the levels discussed in recent  
threads, e.g. /26.  I still think that PA should be highly  
aggregatable for it to be fit for purpose.  If we have typical PA  
allocations of /26, which by and large will be unroutable, we make the  
last /8 broadly useless.  If we do that, we effectively make the v4  
dry period start one /8 earlier.

Does this matter ?  Well, if our work makes the last /8 useless, it  
moves the sky a thousand feet closer to the earth.  If we don't do  
this work, then the sky is STILL FALLING.



- Do I think the minimum allocation size should fall ?

Maybe, but if everyone decides to be a 'good citizen' and ask for a / 
22 rather than /21, how much extra time would we buy ?  3 or 4 months ?

Perhaps a smaller minimum allocation size for the last /8 pushes the  
sky back a few hundred feet, but it sure looks like it's getting  
closer..



- Do I think companies should be limited to one PA allocation from the  
last /8 ?

Probably not, because we will make a lot of business for lawyers  
trying to define what 'one company' is.  If a company has an arm in  
Switzerland, one in the UK, one in France, then does spending money on  
three LIR memberships earn 3x PA ?  What about if an e-commerce  
organisation, an ISP, and a hosting company have the same ultimate  
parent company, must only one of those organisations receive addresses ?

Can I bypass this by requesting PI ?  If so, all of my end users will  
just have to obtain PI through my LIR and we have the same amount of  
addresses in use, but an extra route in the routing table to carry -  
the net result is a worse situation, but the same addresses in use.

Does that sky look any closer to you.. ?



- Should we make an exception for people who say downscaling is not  
possible, e.g. https server farm.

Hmm, whats this blue thing surrounding and crushing me, argh !



- What are our motives ?

Are we building a policy that is designed to placate the regulators  
and governments at the time of the last /8 ?  Because, if so, have we  
not done enough v6 promotion ?

If our motivation is the extend the life of v4, then this is playing  
into the hands of Big NAT vendors.


We can do much harm whilst trying to do good in the construction of  
intervention policies.   The only fix is to deploy v6, so policies  
which are designed to extend the life of v4 will muddy the pro-v6  
message that we want to send to operators.


Andy Davidson