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

Am 08.07.2010 18:22, schrieb Gert Doering:
> 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...

The $1300 won't matter anymore very soon. People will be willing to pay much
more to get a handful of /24.

> 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 should contain a statement about PI space nevertheless, something like
"once the first block of last /8 is given out, only /24 PI blocks are given
out from the remaining PI aggregation, as long as available".

My $0.02
F.