[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Mon May 7 19:59:36 CEST 2012
Good questions, Remco! Thanks, Géza On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com > wrote: > > <all hats off> > > Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some > convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale > for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations, > or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size. > Now, we have a number of new realities: > > - final /8 applies to all v4 address space when it kicks in, including > space that gets returned later; > - It also applies to v4 address space that has not been allocated or > assigned by RIPE NCC at that date; > - An additional 'special case' block was set aside for IXPs. > > This all impacts, in a positive or negative way, how much future there is > in our final /8 policy. I'd like to think that we made a well-considered > decision back then, and if we're going to make a fundamental change like > this one I'd like to see some numbers in an impact analysis. Based on > current distribution, how much space do we anticipate will fall under the > final /8 policy, how much of it will be allocated in /22 PA and how much > will be allocated in /24 PI? Given the 'one size fits nobody' nature of > the final /8 policy, this would be about the number of > allocations/assignments done so far, not the size. > > Personally I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people say 'yes, let's > break IPv4 so we all MUST move to IPv6'. If you think this is good policy > or even good engineering, please think again. It will make us end up with > a broken internet that, surprise, we won't be managing any more. Breaking > IPv4 might lead to increased IPv6 adoption, but not on the internet as we > know it today. Everybody who wants to connect his organisation to the > internet is going to need at least some IPv4 address space for the time > being, so why screw it up for new entrants? > > Finally, I would like to hear how this proposal correlates to the charge > for PI space - the good old 2007-01 chestnut. For post-depletion LIRs, the > grapes would be quite sour if one could pick up a quarter of the available > resources for about one twentieth of the price. Should "Final /8 PIv4" > have a separate price tag? > > Best > > Remco > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its > associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with > it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged > and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received > this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email > immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 > Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. > 6293383. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120507/dfbb2261/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]