[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from 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".

and that was the consensus reached in apnic.

> 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".

'zactly

> 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".

for a long while, we have used conserving routing table space to place a
barrier to entry to the market.  this proposal removes that for future
entrants who need a teensie bit of v4 to front to the legacy v4 part of
the dual stack network.

randy