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

On 22/09/17 14:16, Anna Wilson wrote:
>> 1.  It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment
> 
> My memory is that the original /8 policy was implemented, not to
> encourage/discourage IPv6 adoption among existing IPv4 holders, but
> because we recognised that new entrants joining the internet, even when
> IPv6 capable throughout, still require at least a little bit of IPv4.
> Best I can tell, that's still the case.
> 
> So we're neutral on getting existing holders to shift, but I think this
> proposal is highly positive on the number of new entrants who'll be able
> to take this path.

The current 'last /8' policy is already doing what it was designed to
do, as far as I can determine (and has been mentioned already).

We're now beyond the time of making the 'last /8' policy, by many years,
and I believe that we should be concentrating on making improvements to
IPv6 - ensuring that it's an excellent future for all - instead of
slicing IPv4 thinner. Picking-up the long tail of stubborn/disinterested
organisations is going to be really fun.

>> 2.  It may go as far as to seriously impact the size of the DFZ
> 
> I don't want to dismiss the impact that RIR policies have on the DFZ
> (it's why we started making them, after all) but the DFZ ultimately
> operates on its own (very raw) consensus. Fragmented blocks do work
> today, down to /24 - and we have no idea how full runout will change the
> dynamics of already-routed blocks.

The concern was that once the minimum size is a /24, as proposed, there
will be a need to permit /25 or /26 announcements to permit certain
traffic engineering strategies. Not that /22s will continued to be
disaggregated. Disaggregation to /24 is bad enough as it is, IMO.

-- 
Tom

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170922/9067c160/attachment.sig>