[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09

[Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@localhost]

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.