On 22/09/17 14:16, Anna Wilson wrote:
1. It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment
My memory is that the original /8 policy was implemented, not to encourage/discourage IPv6 adoption among existing IPv4 holders, but because we recognised that new entrants joining the internet, even when IPv6 capable throughout, still require at least a little bit of IPv4. Best I can tell, that's still the case.
So we're neutral on getting existing holders to shift, but I think this proposal is highly positive on the number of new entrants who'll be able to take this path.
The current 'last /8' policy is already doing what it was designed to do, as far as I can determine (and has been mentioned already). We're now beyond the time of making the 'last /8' policy, by many years, and I believe that we should be concentrating on making improvements to IPv6 - ensuring that it's an excellent future for all - instead of slicing IPv4 thinner. Picking-up the long tail of stubborn/disinterested organisations is going to be really fun.
2. It may go as far as to seriously impact the size of the DFZ
I don't want to dismiss the impact that RIR policies have on the DFZ (it's why we started making them, after all) but the DFZ ultimately operates on its own (very raw) consensus. Fragmented blocks do work today, down to /24 - and we have no idea how full runout will change the dynamics of already-routed blocks.
The concern was that once the minimum size is a /24, as proposed, there will be a need to permit /25 or /26 announcements to permit certain traffic engineering strategies. Not that /22s will continued to be disaggregated. Disaggregation to /24 is bad enough as it is, IMO. -- Tom