[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02

On 10/28/10 2:15 AM, "Tore Anderson" <tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> * Hannigan, Martin

Hi Tore,

> 
>> 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.

Point taken. Removing these entirely works in the interest of simplicity and
conciseness.


> 
>> 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.

I don't disagree, but I am concerned that such modifications to the need
approach without some measure of fairness swings the pendulum too far to the
opposite condition, where it enables those that do not have need or reduced
need to gain an unfair advantage. Granted, we are talking about a small
amount of addresses, but considering the likely exorbitant cost of acquiring
even a single address outside of the RIR system I would argue that it
matters.

> 
> 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.
> 

Couldn't we argue the opposite saying that the barrier is neutralized with
V6? It won't be perfect for the short term, but it does allow entry.
 

> 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
> 


Noted with the caveat that no two regions are alike and no single policy
fits all with respect to the uniqueness of each RIR.  Whether a single ISP
takes the entire last /8 or we utilize the Robin Hood approach in the end
the consumers are going to pay regardless so it's almost irrelevant.

With regards to the NRO comparison of proposals in each RIR region, in the
ARIN region austerity measures are implemented with the last /8. Need goes
from 1 year to 3 mos. The ARIN measure is also under considerable pressure
with respect to conversion from it's existing form to something that is
directly tied to transition and more even-handed. It remains to be seen if
something will be able to be done to address it prior to full
implementation.

Best Regards,

-M<