>Tough. We’re out of IPv4. We’re all struggling due to a lack of IPv4 >resources. Everyone just has to make the best of it with whatever they have >now. Anyone >planning to grow their network using IPv4 simply cannot base >their plans on repeatedly going to >the NCC and asking for more. It’s that >simple.
No, not everyone struggling due to lack of IPv4. There is a market and some are selling their IPv4 to others. Are they struggling?? >Let’s suppose 2015-05 is adopted. We quickly burn through the remaining IPv4 >pool because some LIRs continue to grow their IPv4 networks instead of coming >to terms with the end of IPv4. At that point, those LIRs will have a very >nasty shock. There would >literally be no IPv4 remaining at the NCC. So these >LIRs will then be forced to do something else: use NAT, deploy IPv6, use ALGs, >buy addresses on the secondary market, whatever. These LIRs could and should >be doing that "something else" now. They’re >going to *have* to do it >eventually and might as well start now if they’ve not already done that. That assumption is not necessary valid, when 2015-01 was accepted we had not that much change in depletion rate. Can you please define first what you mean from "Quickly burn"? and how this policy can do that? >These LIRs surely know today that they cannot continue with a model that >assumes they can issue IPv4 addresses forever or go back to the NCC and get >more. So all these LIRs would have achieved with 2015-05 is buy themselves a >little extra time to persist >with a doomed model that they already know no >longer works. At that point the NCC would have no IPv4 left for any future >entrants who will need some IPv4 to connect to the legacy v4-only Internet. Indeed, that’s why there are supports from a part of community. >Burning through what’s left of IPv4 for the short-term benefit of LIRs who >can’t/won’t face up to the exhaustion of IPv4 seems wrong to me. Future >entrants would not thank us for frittering away those resources. They’ll need >some IPv4 too. We should think >about their needs too. Our IPv4 address >policies can’t ignore that in favour of some what appears to be >mistaken/misguided short-term benefit and self-interest. >> We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment >IMO the existing policy already achieves that. 2015-5, if adopted, does not. Really? How 2015-05 make it unbalanced? >> in addition to those already proposed my suggestions are: >> >> -allocations of a /22 every 18 months only from IPv4 Addresses Available >> Outside 185/8 to small LIRs (if LIR own < /20 of total allocations) >That’s discriminatory. It’s unfair on those LIRs who have a /20 or greater. No comment! >> -leave the current policy only for IPv4 Addresses Available in 185/8 to >> avoid the too fast depletion of resources >No. 185/8 should not be treated as “special”. The current last /22 policy >applies to all IPv4 blocks at the NCC. That policy kicked in as soon as the >NCC made its first allocation from 185/8, the last /8 it got from IANA. >> -the addresses acquired with this system should not be able to be >> transferred for a long period of time to avoid profit It is not really required to treated it as "special", when it is required we can have a new policy to change the depletion rate. this is not the last policy we can discuss here :) Cheers, Arash
