[address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)

Hi!

On 01/17/2012 10:54 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I have a direct interest in this proposal.  Having got that out of the way,
> I generally agree with principal of the proposal.  If a bunch of
> organisations want to bunch together and set up some common infrastructure
> for interconnection, this is probably more important than giving public ip
> to a tiny number of dial up end users.

Sorry but no, that's not acceptable.
ISPs or IXPs are users of IP addresses. Just like anyone else. Actually ISPs have a bunch of ways to deal with situations where they can't get as much address space as they'd wish to. The generic enduser doesn't.
A fair distribution had to be based on equal distribution. How to define this is ofc arguable - but if there's an enduser-need (or, say, 16 of them) e.g. for a /28, which is just rejected while a hand full of ISPs (together already using maybe several /16) get further /24s - that'd just be outrageous.

Nothing against you personally - but i think the fact that this proposal has quite a crowd of supporters here, of which actually virtually all are IXP-persons, while the majority of non-IXP-persons is simply hardly represented at all, is a severe legitimacy problem. I think doing 'net community' work that way is not a good thing - that way lies suffering.

> This is pointless.  You can't make people use IPv6 and politically stuffing
> it down the throat of an IXP won't do anything other than cause
> facepalming.  It certainly won't cause ipv6 to be more rapidly deployed.
> 
> Either IPv6 will happen because of necessity or it won't.  If IXP
> participants want ipv6, then they will push the exchange operator to
> implement it, and it will be done.  But mandating an ipv6 assignment
> request in an ipv4 assignment policy is, well, silly.

I agree on that one.

While we're at it, on proposals in general:
That "Rationale"-section of course always has an "a) Arguments supporting the proposal" paragraph, where the authors try to sell their standpoint. Usually - this case is no exception - at least in part with blatantly wrong information. The "b) Arguments opposing the proposal" paragraph practically always consists of: "None." (which is probably almost never true) - experience shows that this paragraph also never changes, not if arguments pop up in the discussion of the proposal, not even if opposers point to this paragraph and suggest the respective arguments should be listed there.
That's pathetic. If proposers regularly don't have the balls to also mention the opposing arguments, then just drop the "Rationale"-section, for dignity's sake...

Regards,

	Chris