Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
- To: Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
- From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis at kurtis dot pp dot se>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:38:27 +0200
- Cc: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <22.214.171.124.1.20070726080944.038550b0 at lacnic dot net>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <46A8307B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46A857F3.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 26 jul 2007, at 13.18, Raul Echeberria wrote:
If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC andAfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance ofthem running out first less of a likelihood.It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want topromote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool.Right the opposite.
Well, while the RIRs traditionally have had conservation and aggregation as their main goals with their policies, that to me is not the same as encouraging the use of NATs. I think that what Philip is hinting at (not that I want to put words in his mouth) is that the current use of NATs and double NATs will over time show to be a hinderance in deploying new technology and services. When providers in regions with less assigned IPv4-space/Internet user develops and providers want to deploy new technology, getting the needed IPv4 space might turn out to be to late.
The question of stewardship of the reming free pool is orthogonal to the question of getting rid of NATs and securing current deployments. To do the latter LIRs should be encouraged to seek the IPv4 addresses they will need (actually probably does) for their customers. IF the RIRs are concerned about the allocation pace, that is regulated by policy - not by discouraging people from applying for IPv4 space.
Oh, and I second Philips non support for this policy proposal. - kurtis -