In my opinion, if this policy proposal or policies similar to it are enforced, it will simply continue to push for IPv4-only (or majority) network deployments, that will only put further strain on the already strained IPv4 resources.
This proposal does not accomplish any of the following: 1. Promoting end-to-end IPv6 support. 2. Deploying IPv6-only backbone (whether small, medium, or large sized companies) 3. Encourage the use of technologies such as BGP unnumbered/IPv6 next-hop in the backbone, for IPv4 routing, to limit the wastage of IPv4 addressing in a network. 4. Use of translation mechanisms like 464xlat etc. Which can easily span a /24 across multiple cities/sites by having a centralised NAT64 gateway or similar. 5. Using IPv4 smartly, via strategic usage of RFC1918 for PTP or multipoint interfaces in the backbone and then simply routing a /32 to each device for loopback, instead of wasting a /31 or /30 per link. I have seen first-hand accounts via authorised admin access to various networks across the world on how people actually make use of the strained IPv4 resources, from inefficient subnetting and architecture plan to using /30s or larger for a simple PTP link instead of a /31, even if the underlying equipment supports it (or simply use point 5 idea as above). If an org, does need additional pools, they are free to lease out/buy out from other orgs in the open market. If they can't afford to do so, then they better start gearing up on IPv6 end-to-end since day one. I do not see how this proposal or policies similar to it, is going to help promote an IPv6-majority internet. For various technical reasons above and then some, I am against this proposal. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
