[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Anna,

I saw some calculations that with the current policy it would be 4-5 years, to run completely out, last /8 and returned space.

Now I don’t know if these calculations are correct, but even if they are,  or not, then I would like to know how long it should last ? 10 years, 20 , 50?

I can see and understand your points, the original /8 proposal was not meant to delay v6, fully agree, but by spreading it now it will be expected to be spread out again in say 2-4 years (?) .

I seriously think that the more time we get,  or give the illusion that we can then rearrange it again, the more time people will ignore the fact that it will run out, regardless if we change the policy or not.

Therefore I still think the current policy is sufficient.

Rgds,

Ray


From: Anna Wilson [mailto:anna.wilson at heanet.ie]
Sent: 22. syyskuuta 2017 13:32
To: Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten at elisa.fi>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello Ray,

On 22 Sep 2017, at 10:40, Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten at elisa.fi<mailto:raymond.jetten at elisa.fi>> wrote:
I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal,

IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give more time to seriously start to implement v6. The more time we are given, the more time it will take, that’s how we have done it in the past, and I don’t see the laziness go if not forced to. Warnings were ignored, we (v6 advocates) were laughed at, "again it will end", " you’ve told us that many years". Even if we only hand out a /28, we still have the basic problem, and it won't go away v4 WILL run out. Don’t make the suffering any longer.

I'm a co-author of the proposal... and I agree with you, in as much that postponing efforts to deploy v6 is rewarding the wrong thing.

But I don't recall that being the goal of the original last /8 proposal at all.

Our observations are:
- in order for new entrants to deploy v6 at all, they currently need a little bit of v4
- this fact is probably not going to change between now and the currently-expected runout of the last /8

So, just like the original last /8 proposal, I believe that this is a pro-v6 proposal. All that's changed between the original last /8 proposal and now is that we now have a picture of the run-rate of the last /8.

So this proposal is to give more new entrants the chance to join the v6 internet - with the bit of v4 they need to do that - instead of allowing the rest of us to externalise the cost of v4 runout even further.

Best regards,
Anna

--
Anna Wilson
Service Desk Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+353 (0)1 6609040   anna.wilson at heanet.ie<mailto:anna.wilson at heanet.ie>    www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie>
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301.        CRA No. 20036270

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170922/5658c696/attachment.html>