[address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations
Randy Bush randy at psg.com
Thu Aug 7 22:34:19 CEST 2008
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  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 ---  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.