[address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Decision to move to Last Call (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)

Dear AP WG,

2011-05 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) has come to the end
of the Review Phase.  Sander and I have gone through the mails sent by 
you in the discussion phase and review phase, categorizing everything
into "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", and so on - as 
usual :-) - all the details are listed below.


Overall, there was very strong support for the proposal, with a fairly
high number of supportive e-mails.

In the discussion phase, we had a number of people that wanted to see
textual changes, or required clarification on details.  Some voices had
reservation or opposed the proposal initially but changed that to "neutral"
or "support" after discussion with the chairs.  Two people opposed on
the principle of "no special rules" - more to that later.

In review phase, 18 individuals expressed their explicit support (some
of them relaying support from industry bodies, but this did not influence
the decision process).  

One person sustained his opposition, based on "there should not be a 
special rule for IXP/ISPs" and "only IXP folks are supporting their
support, non-IXPs are underrepresented and would otherwise oppose the
proposal".  Indeed, many of the voices supporting the proposal have come 
from people working for IXPs, but I see a number of supporters that I
know do *not* work for an IXP - and I also know that there are lots of
non-IXP people on the address policy list who are well-capable to express
their opposition to a policy proposal.  So that part of the argument 
doesn't hold.

Remains the counter-argument of non-supporting special-cases for IXPs - 
and indeed, the address policy could be much more simple if all consumers
of IP addresses were equal.  They aren't, and thus we allow special cases
if there is enough support for it.  Counting voices, I see very strong
support.

So, we think that we have enough support to call consensus, and move to 
Last Call.  Emilio will do the formal announcement from the PDO soon.

If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the
conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know.

Gert Doering,
        Address Policy WG Chair


-----------------------------------------------------
Discussion Phase

pro
   James Blessing
   Babak Farrokhi
   Brian Nisbet
   Remco Van Mook
   Martin Millnert
   Sascha Lenz  (even if "not a fan of special entities")
   Niels Bakker
   Tom Hodgson  "worried about special cases, but still supports policy"
   Henk Steenman
   Wolfgang Tremmel
   Larisa Yurkina
   Harald Michl
   David Freedman
   Job Snijders
   Vincent PAGES
   Barry O'Donovan
   Michiel Appelman
   Steven Bakker
   Tom Bird
   Erik Bais
   Jan Zorz
   Carlos Friacas
   David Croft
   Basile Bluntschli
   Rolf Schärer
   Daniel Holme
   Kjetil Otter Olsen
   Sascha Luck
   Nick Hilliard (with some reservactions about the "must do IPv6" bits)
   

against
   Florian Weimer "IXPs shouldn't be special-cased"
   chrish at consol.net "no special treatment... 'no'"

"this should not be necessary"
   Nigel Titley (later agrees with intent of proposal)
   Jim Reid ("reservations but no strong objection")


clarifications
   Dan Luedtke ("which /16 is used?"), answered by proposer
   Remco Van Mook (sizing criteria?), answered by proposer and chair, text
     integrated into next version
   Martin Millnert (what about multiple peering LANs?), answered by proposer
   Sascha Lenz (renumbering time?), answered by Niels Bakker
   Nigel Titley ("shouldn't be the every-lir-gets-a-/22 rule be good enough?"),
     +1'ed by Jim Reid, answered by proposer
   Henk Uijterwaal ("will v4 IXPs be needed after v4 runout?")


side-track "why does an IXP have to return PI and not PA?"
   Florian Weimer, Niels Bakker

side-track "shouldn't this be limited to non-commercial IXPs?"
   Erik Bais, Andy Davidson, Jim Reid

side-track "address assignment must be fair, no special rules for IXPs, 
   and non-IXP-folks are not properly represented at APWG anyway"
   chrish at consol.net, Nick Hilliard (multiple mails)



Review Phase, v3.0 with textual changes suggested in discussion phase

pro
   James Blessing
   Sascha Luck
   Jan Zorz
   Sascha Lenz
   Remco van Mook
   Florian Hibler (needs more coffee)
   Paul Thornton
   Arnold Nipper
   Job Snijders
   Alexander Leefmann
   Lindqvist Kurt Erik
   Christian Kaufmann
   Kjetil Otter Olsen
   Petr Jiran
   Jérôme Fleury
   Jan Torreele
   John Souter
   Sylwester Biernacki

against
   chrish at consol.net

side remark
   Turchanyi Geza  "it's good that the WG affected is supporting the proposal"
      (side track discussion about organizations or individuals speaking in
       the APWG)

-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279