[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 11:12 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hello WG,
> 
> I want to continue the discussion about the Final /8 proposals  
> (2008-06 and 2009-04). The responses to my last question ("Do we (this  
> working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?")  
> were 100% negative: We don't want IPv6 related requirements in the  
> Final /8 policy.

I think APNIC has got it mostly right. To reserve some space for
transition-services is the only suggestion I've seen that can have a
lasting effect throughout the transition period.  Everything else has
been/is about skewing the balance to change who gets most out of the
remaining chunks.

Keep it simple. One single fixed-size block for each new registrant that
qualify for or already has a v6 block, and no prior v4 allocation. 

A whole /8 for might be more than necessary for this though. How
many /20 - /22 -size allocations does RIPE-NCC make each year where the
registrant has no prior allocation?

The intention of such a policy is IMHO primarily to protect new
innovative players from abuse (extortion) by the V4 powerhouses. Once
established they should seek expansion elsewhere (v6) or compete for the
same resources as everyone else. One-size-fits all is therefore
appropriate, as it would be near impossible for the NCC to
differentiate.

//per