[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Aug 5 15:15:19 CEST 2013
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:35:25PM -0400, Tom Vest wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:59 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> On 8/1/13 12:27 , Tore Anderson wrote: > >>> > >>>> * Nick Hilliard > >>>> > >>>> On 01/08/2013 07:38, Tore Anderson wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the > >>>>>> End Users operating networks.; > >>>>>> > >>>>> can you define "fair"? > >>>>> > >>> I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have been > >>> using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get Internet > >>> number resources". > >> > >> This is how Internet number resources have been handled for years; > >> organizations without verified operational needs have received Internet > >> number resources, some in huge quantities. > >> > >> One could easily argue that this is one of the root problems with former > >> Internet number resource handling. > >> > >> Fortunately, IPv6 came to the rescue. > > > > Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational need > > for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space.... So the rules for v6 > > allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation policies. > > > > The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, when > > there was -no- other option. Those times have past and its not clear to me > > why there remains this slavish devotion to having an unlicensed regulator > > second guess the viability of a given operational model. > > Hi Bill, > > Out of curiosity, about how many Class As would you say had been assigned before that scarcity came to be widely recognized, and the > concept of "verified operational need" was first articulated? At that time, was promptly doling out all of the remaining Class As on a first first-come-first served basis *not* considered an option? If not, why not? If the prospect of creating an operating environment in which critical number resources were collectively, indefinitely controlled by a relatively small minority of the total number of operators who could such resources to similarly good use (and whose commercial/existential viability would forevermore be contingent on the terms of their access to someone else's number resources) was not considered a viable option back then, what makes it any more palatable now? > > Granted, both the numerator (resource-haves) and the denominator (have-nots) numbers have grown several orders of magnitude over the ensuing years, but how exactly does that matter if the resulting fraction remains broadly unchanged? > > Curiously, > > TV /8, pre or post classfull addressing? pre-classful, all there was were /8's. Kind of like all there are now are /64s in v6 land. when ~10% of the total v4 pool was allocated, scarcity triggered the creation of classful addressing, which gave us /16 and /24 space in v4-land. at ~40% of the total v4 pool, scarcity created CIDR and started on developing v6-land. I'd suggest that with the viablity of IPv6, that the remaining v4 pool is simply vestigal and its getting far more traction than it deserves. We are clearly not in a position of scarcity when we hand out, to individual devices, the functional equivalent of the -entire- v4 pool, raised to the 32nd power. That is the most profligate waste of address space I have ever seen and these petty "verified operational use" arguments seem farcical and almost hypocritical in comparison. /bill
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]