Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

On 26 jul 2007, at 13.18, Raul Echeberria wrote:

> > If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from
> > NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and
> > AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the  
> > chance of
> > them running out first less of a likelihood.
>
> It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to
> promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the  
> unallocated pool.
> Right the opposite.

Well, while the RIRs traditionally have had conservation and  
aggregation as their main goals with their policies, that to me is  
not the same as encouraging the use of NATs. I think that what Philip  
is hinting at (not that I want to put words in his mouth) is that the  
current use of NATs and double NATs will over time show to be a  
hinderance in deploying new technology and services. When providers  
in regions with less assigned IPv4-space/Internet user develops and  
providers want to deploy new technology, getting the needed IPv4  
space might turn out to be to late.

The question of stewardship of the reming free pool is orthogonal to  
the question of getting rid of NATs and securing current deployments.  
To do the latter LIRs should be encouraged to seek the IPv4 addresses  
they will need (actually probably does) for their customers. IF the  
RIRs are concerned about the allocation pace, that is regulated by  
policy - not by discouraging people from applying for IPv4 space.

Oh, and I second Philips non support for this policy proposal.

- kurtis -