Hi, El 09/04/2014 20:15, Gert Doering escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:39:51PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
I know and its ok the currect policy, but everybody should be ok too with what I said. Marco Schmidt, Policy Development Officer, have been in touch with me and told me to see this: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0006/62763/prop-105-v002.txt Well, different regions are different, and this hasn't reached consensus in APNIC region yet.
We've consciously decided that our last-/8 policy is a "no return" policy, to ensure new entrants in the market can still have *some* IPv4, even if they come in 5 years or 10 years time from now.
If you think you can convince the community that we should now go and change it back, well, this is what the policy development process is for - but I don't think the chances are good. Of course everyone wants more IPv4 addresses, but nobody wants anyone *else* to take away those last bits from him...
OK to the last /8 policy. As I said, all the reasons are right. Now im talking about a new policy for the growing reserved pool when it reach a first defined quantity.
Should we do a proposal like the APNIC's one? If yes, I would at least set conditions for recieving a new block, and setting the minimun allocation to /24 instead of /22. I know at least one community member who would violently object to the RIPE NCC hand out /24 allocations, because that would be fairly bad for
[..] the global routing table. This time, I would actually agree with him.
If we make a proposal like the APNIC one, I and probably the rest of the LIRs, dont want to exhaust the reserved pool giving /22 to everybody even if the only need a /23 or /24. The problem of the actual IPv4 exhaustion was that. Giving big blocks where a little one would work. If the proposal goes well, then we can discuss what is better, big global routing tables or fulminate the reserved pool again and new LIRs will have again the actual problem. Again, i'd love to stop using IPv4. But be realistic, IPv6 isnt really deployed. Now, when a newly created LIR request an IPv4 allocation, first need to request a IPv6 allocation, but is not needed to use it or have it at least in the backbone network of the LIR. Im not asking for having IPv6 enabled on all your network, at least on the backbone. New LIRs have /32 IPv6 allocation and they are not really using it. What is the good way to force LIRs to start using IPv6? I dont know but Im sure with the work of this list/group we can have a solution. Of course, another big problem for the IPv6 are the client side cpe/computer... Kind Regards, PS: Please, remember I'm not english native and some words can be rude. Is not my purpose to be rude, so accept my apoligies. -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefonía Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos@tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).