Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
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.
Raúl
