Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
- To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
- From: Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic dot net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:04:15 -0300
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <66C0C939-9FDC-4060-9429-3ED9DDDA8195 at kurtis dot pp dot se>
- 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> <66C0C939-9FDC-4060-9429-3ED9DDDA8195@kurtis.pp.se>
At 11:38 a.m. 26/07/2007, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
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 and AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance of them running out first less of a likelihood.It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to promote 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.
It is very clear. In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
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.
We have campaigning always against the use of NAT in the region and I think that we have succeed in that sense.
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional pools become exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
But I only wanted to point out that it is not about LACNIC or Afrinic, so saying LACNIC and/or Afrinic shoud do "something" is a wrong approach to the discussion.