> > > I support using /28 , and then /24 , etc, rather than /29 or /27 or > whatever. I know this is inefficient, and realise that 50 years from now, > it will be seen as stupid and wasteful. But 50 years from now, they are > unlikely to care how APNIC handled allocations. > >
The statement above is very worrying to me. I travel the globe assisting developing economies to realise their potential through the use of the Internet. Whenever I talk about IPv6 and the size of the address space, someone will always say words to the effect of: "Phew, this means we will never run out ever again..." I reply with "Throughout history, humanity has proved itself an expert at two skills; being short-sighted and wasteful in equal measure" Some of the largest IP resourcing arguments we have had as an APNIC community, and indeed a global Internet community, have sprung from the adoption of mindsets similar to the one presented above. We have all heard the lament of economies who feel justifiable disadvantaged by being late to the Internet revolution. Economies who now have to make do with a thousand or so IP address per member while looking at economies who came before them and were allocated as many as was convenient at the time. The Internet is for everyone, and those of us assisting the people building and promoting it today have an obligation to ensure that it's available not only for today's users, but also the generations of users who will come in the future. InternetNZ strongly believes that policy making bodies such as the one we are all contributing to here should operate as true servants of the Internet community, rather than a mind-set that they know what's best and enforcing those views onto the masses. Mandating what seem like arbitrary decisions about sub-netting on hex-charater boundaries may been like it has very little to no impact, but the difference between a /29 and a /28 is 633,825,300,114,114,700,748,351,602,688 usable IPv6 addresses. There will always be a balance to achieve between resource conservation and ease of network deployment, but it is just that, a balance. Allocating unnecessary IP address space so that it is easier for humans to type into networking equipment is not striking the right balance point. I do not wish to give support or otherwise to prop-111 at this time, I will wait to hear oral submissions at the OPM, what I would encourage however is that in making a decision to support prop-111, members consider what is best for the billions of people in the Internet Community that we all serve, rather than what is easiest for a small minority to type or read on a screen. Regards, Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) [email protected] To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
