Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations

[Randy Bush randy@localhost]

Remco van Mook wrote:
> I have read it and I understand that it's only about the last /8. I
> apologise for not making a more elaborate and eloquent reference. But
> considering the scenario, wouldn't you agree that I'm also talking about
> the same timeframe?

[ just trying to be precise here ]

the apnic region has no policy or policy proposals other than the
current you-get-what-you-justify for space other than the last /8 from
the free pool.

> AFAIK we don't have any significant number of requests for PA larger
> than a /8 (fortunately)

in this case, i suspect a 'significant number' would be about one.

listen to alain durand (comcast) and miyakawa shin (ntt) some time and
be very fearful.  they are in a terrible trade-off space.  they either
get a lot of public /8s or break the ipv4 internet [0] for their
customers.  currently they are opting for the latter.

> And it is a 'one size fits all' approach :-)

actually, not exactly.  the spnic proposal very purposfuly says the then
current smallest allocation size.  as things get tight, one might expect
that size to change.

randy

---

[0] with 'carrier class nat' in the net core, you will get to write to
comcast's walled garden lawyers when you want to deploy a new
application that needs help from the nat.