[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
Arano-san,
On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Takashi Arano wrote:
First of all, I believe the discussion should be done
based on comparison between this policy or "doing nothing special"
or some other counter proposal.
Just to be clear, if I could summarize the proposal, the major points
are:
- do not change current allocation/assignment policy
- reserve 10 /8s
- when the IANA free pool gets to 30 /8s, tell the world that IPv4
allocations end in 2 years.
Is this a fair characterization?
As you pointed out, this policy would artificially accelerate the
runout date,
but it's just 6 months or so. Is this a significant difference?
It is 6 months under current allocation policies and consumption
rates, right?
To be clear, I'm not really against principle 2, rather I'm not sure
I see the value and I see it generating a lot of controversy. Under
what criteria would you expect the reserved space to be allocated or
is it locked away for the rest of time? Who would make the decision
on allocation out of the reserved pool?
If someone can propose a graduated approach, then we can compare it
with the proposed policy.
My concern is that the proposed policy provides no back pressure to
alter demand for IPv4 address space. It is like driving down a road,
seeing a sign that says "bridge out ahead" and setting the cruise
control and closing your eyes as a result.
Worse, I would imagine such a policy would generate a 2-year rush
from folks who will try to justify as much address space as they
can. Although perhaps I'm too cynical.
An alternative approach would be to tie the required justification
for address space to the amount of free space available. As the free
pool gets smaller, the justification requirements (e.g., utilization
density, support for IPv6, etc.) increase.
But in considering the policy, we simulated this kind of alternative.
For example, assume a graduated approach can save 20% of current
usage.
It would result in only one year's life extention. On the other hands,
20% conservation seems very tough to ISPs. ISPs would have to pace
down
their business without transitioning to IPv6 anyway.
Obviously, ISPs are going to have to change their models of operation
regarding IP addressing and I have no doubt it'll be tough and
expensive and painful. I guess I don't see how this policy helps
this. Perhaps a more fundamental question would be what is the policy
trying to encourage or discourage?
Thanks,
-drc
