[GLOBAL-V6] Re: V$Bal(Basz: [GLOBAL-V6] Detailed summary of RIPE andAPNIC discussions

[Takashi Arano <arano@gblx.ad.jp>]

The original proposal from JPNIC has already included the concept of 
address space lease, one of current IPv4 policy's basic idea, which means
the lessee should return his space when he doesn't need it any more.
I have no objection for putting this in a upcoming draft.

Regards,
Takashi Arano

At 21:01 01/10/25, turchanyi.geza@ln.matav.hu wrote:


>Anne,
>
>many thanks for your excellent summary.
>
>I would like to add some new arguments, and raise some question marks.
>
>1, The main goal is that ISP-s and end-users should have enough address space,
>OK. However, allocating address space for a LIR for ever, and assigning address
>space to end-users for ever is wrong in my view. Allocation an assignement
>should be long enough, however, not for ever.
>
>LIR and and user should have addresses always, however, not necessary the old
>one. Might be from new blocks, and according to the new policy, if a new policy
>should be created. The period of forced transition should be long enough that
>will allow a smooth transition for all parties.
>
>Without this expiration mechanism it would be difficult to reach the most
>important goal: effective aggregation.
>AND, if there are unforeseen side effects of the address allocation and
>assignement mechanism applied, then this can be corrected later on: the expired
>addresses will be available for reuse after a while.
>
>In practice,  any network will be redesigned after a while. If an end-user can
>have a new range for the new designe, the old range of addresses can be given
>back when the last box of the old network will be switched off (or had been
>renumbered). Similarly an ISP can move the a new range off addresses, however,
>this need more time, as all the end-user should leave the old address range.
>
>The question is, what would be a resonable time frame for address allocation and
>address assignement. I would like to listen for the others, what they think
>about.
>
>2, I agree that privacy has high importance. First of all, if my privacy is not
>hurt.
>
>However, I have bad experiences of .spam and .hacker companies, and do not realy
>want that even .spam and .hacker registry should exist.
>
>I fully agree, that the original proposal not intented to support Mr.Spam,
>however, there are side effects, always...
>
>Best regards,
>           Geza
>
>
>-
>- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net