[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Review Period extended until 26 June 2008 (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Fri May 30 14:23:54 CEST 2008
Afternoon, First off let me say that I am broadly in agreement with 2008-03, but I wished to make clear my thoughts on the incompatibility of the two proposals in the subject. I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible with 2007-09. If both policies were introduced then I can easily envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03. The worse case scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they may see very little of that last /8. I realise that many people have different views of the impetus behind 2008-03, but I can only view it through my eyes, so apologies if anyone feels I'm attributing motive where there is none. Regards, Brian.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Review Period extended until 26 June 2008 (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]