Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}

  • To: David Farmer <farmer at umn dot edu>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
  • From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
  • Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 01:58:30 -0700
  • Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>, "Chu, Yi \[NTK\]" <Yi.Chu at sprint dot com>
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <4E62F74C.90509 at umn dot edu>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <><> <> <>
    • last I looked.
      While I think the proposal is flawed and is generally a bad idea from a number
      of other perspectives. I am utterly unconcerned with its implications for
      address consumption so long as no economy receives more than a /14.
      On Sep 3, 2011, at 8:58 PM, David Farmer wrote:
      > Yes, the current proposal is limited to APNIC, which has just under 30% 
      > of the economies or countries of the world. However, that is still a 
      > large number of economies or countries. And I would bet there will be a 
      > reaction by a number of other economies or countries in the world, 
      > asking their RIR's for a similar reservations.  I'll grant you that 
      > maybe not all economies or countries can justify a /16 for such a 
      > reservation.  But, if APNIC starts making such reservations, why 
      > wouldn't a similar proposals be made in other regions?
      > If it is a good idea in the APNIC region, why isn't a good idea for the 
      > world?
      > Also, I'm still interested in the study that was referred to in the 
      > presentation in Busan.
      > On 9/3/11 22:29 CDT, ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com wrote:
      >> Reservation for all economies in APNIC.
      >> Regards
      >> Naresh
      >> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Tata Indicom
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: David Farmer<farmer at umn dot edu>
      >> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:26:49
      >> To: Naresh Ajwani<ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
      >> Reply-To: David Farmer<farmer at umn dot edu>
      >> Cc: RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL<ddgnt-dot at nic dot in>; Chu, Yi [NTK]<Yi.Chu at sprint dot com>; Matthew Moyle-Croft<mmc at internode dot com dot au>; sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net<sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>; David Farmer<farmer at umn dot edu>
      >> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of discussion prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
      >> Are you saying that a /16 isn't a large reservation? Or, Are you saying
      >> that the proposed reservations are not suppose to be on a country or
      >> economy basis?
      >> Maybe my language was confusing.  I simply mean a large reservation made
      >> for an economy or country. It is my understating that is what is being
      >> proposed.  If that is not true then please explain the proposal.
      >> Thanks
      >> On 9/3/11 22:26 CDT, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
      >>> Dear David,
      >>> The proposal doesn't advocate large country reservations.
      >>> Regards and best wishes,
      >>> Naresh Ajwani
      >>> Sent from my iPad
      >>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 7:05, David Farmer<farmer at umn dot edu>   wrote:
      >>>> I don't think anyone is saying that you or India are trying to be unfair.  You say the proposal is intended to allow any economy in the APNIC region to get a reservation.  So at that basic level the proposal seems fair.
      >>>> However, I believe what is been asked is something different, I believe the question is directed at the very idea of creating reservations, for India or anyone else, and that these reservations will inevitably leads to creation unfairness in the system.  Therefore, I believe you are being asked to explain why you think a system of large country reservations will lead to more fairness rather than less fairness in the system.
      >>>> Additionally, creating a system of very large country reservations, especially if this becomes common practice around the globe, is more likely to hasten an exhaustion crisis for IPv6 rather than alleviate one.  For discussion, what If we reserved a /16 for every country, we wouldn't really even dent IPv6, we would need 12 to 16 /12s to accomplish these reservations, but larger reservation would require even more.  However, this is approximately 3 times more than the current IPv6 space allocated by IANA to the RIRs.  Such an acceleration in the allocations from IANA would not be possible without some kind of consequences to the system, at the very least there would be the psychological impact of such an acceleration.
      >>>> A study was referenced several time in the presentation and answers to questions in Busan;  Has this study been published?  Is it publicly available?  Has it been peer reviewed?
      >>>> On 9/2/11 10:09 CDT, RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL wrote:
      >>>>> Prop 100 proposes for all economies in APNIC region&    not just for India only.
      >>>>> -----Original Message-----
      >>>>> From: "Chu, Yi [NTK]"
      >>>>> Sent:  02/09/2011, 3:34  AM
      >>>>> To: Matthew Moyle-Croft; Naresh Ajwani
      >>>>> Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net"
      >>>>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Summary of    discussion    prop-100 {SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED}
      > -- 
      > ===============================================
      > David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn dot edu
      > Networking & Telecommunication Services
      > Office of Information Technology
      > University of Minnesota	
      > 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
      > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
      > ===============================================
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net