Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assig

To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructure assignments from the final /8
From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:29:07 +1200
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <m27hjfr2hc.wl%randy at psg dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <482182673.27379@cnnic.cn> <2D01DAA7-A036-4532-8D31-D3F632EEAA33@terrym.net> <482219336.10044@cnnic.cn> <482273705.23067@cnnic.cn> <482276913.30522@cnnic.cn> <482285403.14935@cnnic.cn> <482286488.17539@cnnic.cn> <482292649.31845@cnnic.cn> <482395332.29716@cnnic.cn> <482525246.07616@cnnic.cn> <482609009.07246@cnnic.cn> <482652178.04433@cnnic.cn> <482667464.25544@cnnic.cn> <482668156.26293@cnnic.cn> <482692841.19969@cnnic.cn> <m27hjfr2hc.wl%randy@psg.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

the risks and constraints that apply to them as part of their business
plan. If they don't understand that constructing a business model based
on IPv4 address space doesn't deserve to succeed in my view.

The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 should be one of those constraints and I
thought our final /8 policy was constructed so that the boundaries would
be clear and unambiguous to everyone - existing and new users.

There have been several policy proposals since we agreed the final /8
policy that have tried to create corner cases and I just wish we'd stop
trying to do this.

I'll repeat my view that this group should be focussed on policy
initiatives that promote and support the deployment of IPv6 where they
are needed.

Perhaps a sig-policy meeting where there were no proposals tabled might
be one way to measure success!