[AusNOG] IPocalypse now (?)

[Alastair Johnson]

The problem is that a provider of colocation and transit services to many individual customers (that would not qualify for an APNIC assignment, yet), will be unable to get additional space from APNIC for new customers once they receive their final /22; unless they go the questionable route of setting up shell companies to receive multiple allocations.

Whether or not they have deployed v6 is somewhat irrelevant since they will still have customer demand for v4, but will be unable to satisfy that demand without some tricky load-balancer work.

I'm somewhat on the fence with the proposal to change from /8 to /9 for this reason. I certainly appreciate that we're holding it for the future; but it does lock up resources so that they may end up never used.

It is potentially much worse for the content operators than the access operators...

aj

------Original Message------
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
To: Alastair Johnson
Cc: David Hughes
Cc: Skeeve Stevens
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPocalypse now (?)
Sent: 31 Jan 2011 22:05


On 01/02/2011, at 1:08 PM, Alastair Johnson wrote:

> 
> But only if many startups are approaching APNIC for that space. And it doesn't help someone like my previous employer that had many single server colocation customers that would need v4 for hosting, that can't get another allocation from the final /8 to serve that sort of customer.

Two things:

1) The problem is that, like the financial product disclaimers, past history doesn't give any indication of what'll happen in the future.
2) Not sure what problem your previous employer has exactly.

> 
> Swings and roundabouts, but best discussed on the policy sig list.
> 

That's what I'm trying to encourage.

MMC