[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie
Thu Oct 28 12:53:29 CEST 2010
On 28 Oct 2010, at 00:37, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > Allocating each LIR exactly the same sized prefix regardless of _need_ is > pretty unfair sll considered. The addresses could be utilized more > efficiently addressing qualified need instead. As I read the proposal, the allocation of a single prefix of the same size to each LIR is not at all regardless of need, but prioritizes a different need -- that of access to the post-depletion market -- over the pre-depletion need to obtain address allocations for assignment to customers. IIUC, the idea here is that the growing Internet will be IPv6-only; that 6to4 gateways or other continuity measures will be required; that the opportunity for new market entrants to run their own continuity infrastructure should be protected; and that a single, small allocation per LIR will afford this protection. That seems pretty _fair_ to me, in the circumstances. ATB Niall
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]