[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02

Hello,

On 10/28/2010 01:37 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> 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.

Allocations from _last_ /8 in my oppinion are special and we don't need
fulfill LIRs needs like "additional /16" here. Allowing larger
allocations from last /8 simply stalls implementation of IPv6 in
networks around and will exhaust existing space more quickly. And it's
typical argument from many network operators even in these days - until
they'll have enough IPv4 resources, they'll not care about IPv6 at all.

By this proposal, everyone knows in advance, that from some term they'll
receive only /22 allocation and nothing more. This proposal simply
shifts time of real depletion more closely, BUT there's some special
reserve to serve additional requests in accordance to defined rules.
This is quite fair, as it's announced in advance.

On 10/28/2010 01:37 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> I don't have a better proposal or more interesting suggestion other
> than we're probably better off doing nothing than this.

Doing nothing is not a option, at least not for me. This sounds like you
want to simply depredate land (available addresses) as much as possible
a you don't care about the future. I'm seeing proposal 2010-02 as
compromise - in my oppinion, some remaining IPv4 address space should be
reserved ONLY for _new_ LIRs to give them some IPv4 address space and
this proposal efectivelly does this (and in addition, existing LIRs can
be served, too).

And even there're some economical implications, the proposal itself
isn't primary about money and cost of IPv4 address, this is technical
proposal. It's about address distribution to new and existing LIRs. And
we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space
for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over
IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free
allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible.


So, I'm personally SUPPORTING this proposal - as doing something is
better than doing nothing and just wait for depletion. And I'm not
seeing any major reason, why not support 2010-02 proposal - it's simple
and clear.


With regards,
Daniel