[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Sep 28 13:21:05 CEST 2017
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Hi All, Hi, Thanks for your input! > I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have > explained by other people during the last week: > - maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some > IPv4") The proposal tries to remain neutral about that. But you are not alone on this point. > - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, > and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for > "longer than /24 in GRT"). Any prefix can be split into /24s and still remain globally routable. Going beyond /24 is really not in this proposal. A new proposal would be needed for that... > I would also add some other reasons: > - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what > it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from > upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here > the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the > policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of > resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources > with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent. If you disagree with the current "lax" status, why not build a new proposal? We don't need to address everything with just one proposal... > - this brings us to the next point : with RIPE region being for the > moment the second-richest RIR (v4-wise) and the lax rules regarding > out-of-region use, I would not like RIPE NCC to become the world's > "last resort" registry for v4 resources (or any other resources for > that matter). It's a valid viewpoint. I would also agree with "less lax", but that would be a different proposal. > And if I were to agree with the proposal (which is not the case right > now), I would say that some thresholds should be used. Like /10 or /11 > available for /23 allocations and /12 available for /24. Under no > circumstance /24 now. I can also agree with that, but it's just a matter of sizing it. If v2.0, v3.0, v4.0, ... is eventually approved/adopted, it may be that there isn't a /12 to do this anymore... So, we really didn't focus in the task of establishing barriers/boundaries. But we might consider this for v2.0, if it helps. :-) Best Regards, Carlos Friaças > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]