[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: ... 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall Murphy
niallm at avernus.net
Thu Jun 8 14:10:51 CEST 2006
David Conrad wrote: > I'm confused. According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the existing > policy doesn't require requesters to have 200 customers. All that it > requires is that an LIR not be an end site, provide IPv6 connectivity, > and "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organisations within two years." > > Note it says "a plan". An organization incapable of coming up with _a > plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant problems than not > having IPv6 space. <climbs onto soapbox> This is the most weaselly-worded clause of any RIR policy I've read. If we *actually* cared about creating a /real/ barrier to DFZ membership - for aggregation or for any other reason - why on earth would we require a *plan* rather than actual numbers? Conversely, if we *don't* care about creating a real barrier, why have this charade at all? As it stands, the 'plan' clause is a sufficient loophole that it does not serve well either purpose of enforcing aggregation, or *not* enforcing aggregation. It is far from being a clear and credible policy, and it should be taken out and shot. <off soapbox> Niall, who apologises for the excessive markup
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: ... 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]