[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02

Hi,

* Hannigan, Martin

> Section two is redundant and linkage to v6 is perfunctory at best so
> why bother codifying at all? I think we get the message with respect
> to exhaustion and v6 and further marketing is not necessary.

I do agree with you on both of these points, but I don't feel that
getting rid of them are reason enough alone to start over again. There's
not that much time left, and the two points in question are mostly
no-ops and have no real harmful effects.

> Allocating each LIR exactly the same sized prefix regardless of
> _need_ is pretty unfair sll considered. The addresses could be
> utilized more efficiently addressing qualified need instead.
> 
> I don't have a better proposal or more interesting suggestion other
> than we're probably better off doing nothing than this.

The problem with continuing as before is of course that a single or a
small number of LIRs could potentially allocate the entire last /8 over
just a few days.  In my opinion this situation would be decidedly more
unfair than the one proposed here.

It would also create a barrier of entry to the market.  A startup ISP
that can not get _any_ IPv4 addresses to number their LSN, AFT, MX-es,
and other critical infrastructure that needs to communicate with the
legacy IPv4 internet, would be dead in the water.

With not enough addresses to go around achieving complete fairness is
impossible.  I support 2010-10 as it is the least unfair proposal I've
seen so far.

It's worth noting that similar policies are adopted in other regions:

http://nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-6

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27