[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Vladimir Andreev
vladimir at quick-soft.net
Tue Jun 9 17:51:01 CEST 2015
> The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > make the obvious loophole less attractive. Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. So what is this proposal about? 09.06.2015, 18:40, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be >> the only reason that drives our actions. > > Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. > > Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this > list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was > brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed > that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something > he came up with "to increase his profits". > > Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on > addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we > should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never > happened. > > The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > make the obvious loophole less attractive. > > (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside > the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, > feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]