[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Fri Jul 9 04:42:39 CEST 2010
> So far, the only proposal that had any chance of coming near consensus > was "chop it in small pieces, give every existing and possible future LIR > a *single* piece, and nothing more, ever". and that was the consensus reached in apnic. > The intent is "those that roll out new networks will use IPv6, but are > likely to need a few addresses for their translation services" - and > since it's very hard to formulate RS-applicable criteria for that, > simplicity is our friend here: "a single chunk, done". 'zactly > It *will* run out, no matter what we do - the only question remaining > is "will we able to lessen the pain (especially for future entrants > into this arena) a bit with this policy, or not". for a long while, we have used conserving routing table space to place a barrier to entry to the market. this proposal removes that for future entrants who need a teensie bit of v4 to front to the legacy v4 part of the dual stack network. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]