Owen and All, > I think this is an appropriate time frame for runout of this pool as it will be at least that long before new entrants are not > in need of some way to communicate with the legacy IPv4 internet.
In 2010, I was told that the transition would be end in 5 years. In 2000…… Where are we right now? I bet my 5 cents that we just started long long way. Regards, Masato Yamanishi 2015-09-15 2:36 GMT+09:00 Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>: > > On Sep 14, 2015, at 01:59 , Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > In Jakarta, Geoff Huston presented the status of our IPv4 resources, in > particular about exhaustion and transfer, > and some participants asked to summarize and post it to the list for > further discussion. > > Following is Chairs' summary of the presentation and discussion. > > 1. Status of APNIC Final /8 pool (103/8) > - Will run out ~4-5 years > > > I think this is an appropriate time frame for runout of this pool as it > will be at least that long before new entrants are not in need of some way > to communicate with the legacy IPv4 internet. > > 2. Status of IANA Recovered pool (non-103) > - Will run out in next 7 months+ > - IANA may allocate additional space in every 6 months > - This pool will repeatedly ‘run-out’ as IANA delegates more space and > it is distributed by APNIC > - May need policy to deal with temporary exhaustion of the non-103 pool > -> Close the door when exhausted or create the waiting list and put > further applications to there? > > > I really don’t care what we do here. What would be the default action if > no policy change is enacted? Can we get clarification from staff on that? > Absent that being a particularly bad outcome (unlikely), I say let’s not > focus on rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs any further. > > 3. Some address spaces in 103/8 were transferred within 12months since > initial allocation > - There is no policy to prohibit it while the Secretariat asks in > review process > > > Closing the door after the horses have left the barn is likely pointless. > The community specifically chose to exclude this concern from the transfer > policy during its development (it’s not like it was not discussed), so I > say let’s spend this energy getting IPv6 deployed rather than rearranging > the IPv4 deck chairs any further. > > Owen > >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
