Search RPD Archives
[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
dogwallah at gmail.com
Wed May 2 22:16:13 UTC 2018
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>
> The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go back and
> forth, as i see a dangerous trend of members standing at very sharp and
> deep divides. The proponents and those opposed to the policy are not ready
> to shift grounds, in this regard can we answer the following:
I agree with your assessment.
> 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a policy of
> this nature?
No. This is the crux of the issue. Once we define/agree on the problem
statement, we can move forward.
> 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?
> 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried and we
> make progress on more productive issues.
> However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest that we do a
> clause by clause discussion and come to some consensus, any clause agreed
> upon will form part of the policy. Though tedious but that way, we can
> identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree or discard it.
> But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.
> It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that will fast
> track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching the discussion on
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ALAIN AINA" <aalain at trstech.net>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 12:55:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
> > On 28 Apr 2018, at 01:48, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > There are a number of problems with this:
> > 1. History shows that forcing people to accept IPv6 addresses in
> order to obtain
> > more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help deploy IPv6, it just
> makes a mess of
> > the registry and registry related statistics.
> > 2. Please explain how one goes about determining equivalence between
> an IPv4 allocation/assignment
> > and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a v6 /64 more like a v4
> /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it depends.
> > Is a /48 more like a /24 or something larger? Answer: it depends.
> > IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in terms of address size and
> allocation boundaries that there
> > simply isn’t a good way to define equivalence. That’s a good
> thing, but it means that what you are
> > proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if at all).
> > Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How many times does the
> community need to reject it before the authors will recognize that it is
> not wanted?
> Oy yes “community”
> The proposal got consensus and was recommended for ratification by BoD.
> There has been an appeal against co-chair decision. The Appeal committee
> decision to nullify the cochairs decision was baseless and has been
> lets discuss this in Dakar.
> > Owen
> >> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5 allocation criteria whereby
> any member requesting for ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of
> ipv6 as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested without
> requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and further request can be made
> when deployment of the allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained.
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates
*where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD