| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Arano-san, On Feb 15, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Takashi Arano wrote:
A graduated approach means that some portions of addresses which can be currently justified to allocate will not be justified in any new graduated policy. In other words, it says the policy will have to be becoming tighter gradually.
Right.
My question is HOW. I personally can't imagine which kind of policy will achieve this goal.
Some potential examples:- Currently, APNIC has an "80% rule". Create a policy that when the current free pool is reduced by 50%, make it a 90% rule. When the remaining free pool is reduced by another 50%, make it a 95% rule. Etc.
- Currently, APNIC has no requirement to demonstrate IPv6 support. When the free pool is reduced 25%, APNIC institutes a rule that organization to which new allocations are made must demonstrate their infrastructure is IPv6 capable. When the remaining free pool is reduced another 25%, organizations to which new allocations are made must demonstrate 10% of their customers are IPv6 capable. Etc.
- Currently, APNIC recommends organisations should base their assignment requests on the assumption that 25 percent of the address space will be used immediately and 50 percent used within one year. When the free pool is reduced by 25%, these values should increase to 50 and 75 percent respectively. When the free pool is reduced by 50%, these values should increase to 75 and 90 percent respectively. Etc.
I'm sure there are many others. Mix and match as appropriate. The key bit is that the increasing requirements should be automatic so the policy doesn't need to be modified.
Even if there are any, who in the world can agree with a new policy which makes him/her giving up requesting addresses or just getting significatly fewer addresses?
People put up with the imposition of the existing policies because they felt it was the best way to manage the address space. Would this be different?
Rgds, -drc
