VS: [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal

[Storm, Ørnulf <ornulf.storm@localhost, thk@localhost]

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Storm, Ørnulf 
Sendt: 28. april 2006 10:37
Til: address-policy-wg@localhost
Kopi: 'Thor-Henrik Kvandahl'
Emne: SV: [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal


I also support Thor-Henrik comments.

I think it would be a bad idea to make a policy change now that increases the consumption, especially now when it is going towards the end of the lifetime of the IPv4 address space, relatively speaking reference to the work that Geoff Houston has done on predictions of the lifetime of the IPv4 address space.

This proposal could be seen as favouring the large ISPs and is working in disfavour of the small ISPs. The IP address space should be assigned in a fairly manner and it appears that this proposal could change this. All participants should have the same conditions when competing with each other. A small ISP in a small country should have same possibilities to get new IP address space as a large ISP in a large country. 
Therefore, I think that establishing this policy would be the wrong message for the RIPE community to send in these WSIS days with the "world watching".

Regards,

Ørnulf Storm
Network Addresses and Electronic Signatues
Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority
E-mail: ors@localhost
Telephone: +47 22824600
Web: www.npt.no
 





-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [
	    
	    
] På vegne av Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
Sendt: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:48 AM
Til: address-policy-wg@localhost
Emne: [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal



Hi all,

here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.

I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:

* This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4.
* It favourises the large ISPs.
* In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told
  that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one
  representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns.
  I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would
  want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE
  community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.

And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".

--
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
no.telenor