[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)

Very well put Remco. Thank you for speaking up.

On Mon, 7 May 2012, Remco Van Mook wrote:

>
> <all hats off>
>
> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some
> convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale
> for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations,
> or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size.
> Now, we have a number of new realities:
>
> - final /8 applies to all v4 address space when it kicks in, including
> space that gets returned later;
> - It also applies to v4 address space that has not been allocated or
> assigned by RIPE NCC at that date;
> - An additional 'special case' block was set aside for IXPs.
>
> This all impacts, in a positive or negative way, how much future there is
> in our final /8 policy. I'd like to think that we made a well-considered
> decision back then, and if we're going to make a fundamental change like
> this one I'd like to see some numbers in an impact analysis. Based on
> current distribution, how much space do we anticipate will fall under the
> final /8 policy, how much of it will be allocated in /22 PA and how much
> will be allocated in /24 PI? Given the 'one size fits nobody' nature of
> the final /8 policy, this would be about the number of
> allocations/assignments done so far, not the size.
>
> Personally I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people say 'yes, let's
> break IPv4 so we all MUST move to IPv6'. If you think this is good policy
> or even good engineering, please think again. It will make us end up with
> a broken internet that, surprise, we won't be managing any more. Breaking
> IPv4 might lead to increased IPv6 adoption, but not on the internet as we
> know it today. Everybody who wants to connect his organisation to the
> internet is going to need at least some IPv4 address space for the time
> being, so why screw it up for new entrants?
>
> Finally, I would like to hear how this proposal correlates to the charge
> for PI space - the good old 2007-01 chestnut. For post-depletion LIRs, the
> grapes would be quite sour if one could pick up a quarter of the available
> resources for about one twentieth of the price. Should "Final /8 PIv4"
> have a separate price tag?
>
> Best
>
> Remco
>
>
>
> This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited.  Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW.  Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
>
>

Best Regards,

Daniel Stolpe

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm