[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Omo Oaiya]

Owen,

On 10 November 2016 at 20:52, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> In order to determine what WE are talking about, we must include what I am
> talking about and since I am talking only about this one particular bad
> provision in this context, WE are discussing a /12 reserved for “support of
> the exercise of bad judgment” (aka “unforeseen demand for IPv4”).
>
>
This is a matter of opinion. We see daily that popular opinion or even
purported evidence can be very unreliable and as such prudent to be
conservative.

Others would consider this exercise of good judgement and it is the current
softlanding policy that reserves /12.

Softlanding-bis proposes a /13.  Please see FAQ again  -
http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/
policy-proposals/1627-softlanding-bis-policy-faq-v2


I favor nothing at all as the time for protecting people from failing to
>> deploy IPv6 should be considered past at this point.
>>
>
> We should be empowering them to deploy IPv6 and not depriving them of the
> IPv4 they need to do this.
>
>
> I have expressed support for a transition block. I am not arguing against
> that. I am arguing against taking a /12 away from potentially being used
> for this and instead being set aside for no defined purpose whatsoever.
>

Setting the /13 aside for community to decide what to do if the need arises
really should not be an issue.  "Saving for a rainy day" is what good
custodians do.


>
>
>> If you couldn’t figure it out in the 25 years of warning that you had or
>> in the nearly 3 years since IANA ran out of space, than really, I think
>> that the community’s obligations to protect your future developments from
>> early obsolescence are past at this point.
>>
>
> We also need to ensure that the African community can participate without
> being forced to acquire resources they need from prohibitive transfer
> markets.
>
>
> I’m not sure how you expect to do that by preventing the African community
> from having access to 1/16th of their last /8. Please explain to me how
> blocking off a /12 so that it cannot be used by the African community
> achieves this goal.
>

You have also argued that any need for V4 will be superseded by IPv6
deployments in no time and having less v4 in the system will speed up IPv6
deployments.



> At this point, you are making my argument for me.
>

Hardly .... but we seem to agree that transition should be the focus in
exhaustion.   I wonder if converting the /13 from "unforeseen" to an
explicit reserve for transition to IPv6 will be more acceptable?

We have different circumstances in AFRINIC but I am thinking along the
lines of the dedicated /10 set aside in ARIN for IPv6 transition -
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10

-Omo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161116/9734624b/attachment.html>