[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:58:00PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
> The spirit of the proposal appears to be to conserve v4 addressing,
> to assist with v6 adoption.  Fine.  But, what about for multihomed
> end sites that do not need a /22, or have ncc memebrship budget ?
> What's the *real* difference between an LIR with one end user (their
> own infrastructure), and a non-LIR with PI ?  Other than ?1,300 a
> year...

Well, the basic question is "what do we want to do with the last /8"?

So far, the only proposal that had any chance of coming near consensus
was "chop it in small pieces, give every existing and possible future LIR 
a *single* piece, and nothing more, ever".

The intent is "those that roll out new networks will use IPv6, but are
likely to need a few addresses for their translation services" - and since
it's very hard to formulate RS-applicable criteria for that, simplicity
is our friend here: "a single chunk, done".

Let's not forget that IPv4 is running out.  So a debate about IPv4 PI 
space from the last /8 is somewhat moot - basing business decisions on
the availability of IPv4 address space is a very very bad idea.

It *will* run out, no matter what we do - the only question remaining is
"will we able to lessen the pain (especially for future entrants into 
this arena) a bit with this policy, or not".

If you all think that this policy should look different, please voice 
specific proposals how to change it... but hurry up, because if we spend
a year discussing it, there is no IPv4 space left to haggle about.

Gert Doering,
	Address Policy WG Chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  150584

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