On 22/09/17 14:16, Anna Wilson wrote: >> 1. It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment > > My memory is that the original /8 policy was implemented, not to > encourage/discourage IPv6 adoption among existing IPv4 holders, but > because we recognised that new entrants joining the internet, even when > IPv6 capable throughout, still require at least a little bit of IPv4. > Best I can tell, that's still the case. > > So we're neutral on getting existing holders to shift, but I think this > proposal is highly positive on the number of new entrants who'll be able > to take this path.
The current 'last /8' policy is already doing what it was designed to do, as far as I can determine (and has been mentioned already). We're now beyond the time of making the 'last /8' policy, by many years, and I believe that we should be concentrating on making improvements to IPv6 - ensuring that it's an excellent future for all - instead of slicing IPv4 thinner. Picking-up the long tail of stubborn/disinterested organisations is going to be really fun. >> 2. It may go as far as to seriously impact the size of the DFZ > > I don't want to dismiss the impact that RIR policies have on the DFZ > (it's why we started making them, after all) but the DFZ ultimately > operates on its own (very raw) consensus. Fragmented blocks do work > today, down to /24 - and we have no idea how full runout will change the > dynamics of already-routed blocks. The concern was that once the minimum size is a /24, as proposed, there will be a need to permit /25 or /26 announcements to permit certain traffic engineering strategies. Not that /22s will continued to be disaggregated. Disaggregation to /24 is bad enough as it is, IMO. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
