[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [#MLT-583232]: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Tue Jul 7 01:03:25 CEST 2009
On Jul 6, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 11:12 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: >> Hello WG, >> >> I want to continue the discussion about the Final /8 proposals >> (2008-06 and 2009-04). The responses to my last question ("Do we >> (this >> working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?") >> were 100% negative: We don't want IPv6 related requirements in the >> Final /8 policy. > > I think APNIC has got it mostly right. To reserve some space for > transition-services is the only suggestion I've seen that can have a > lasting effect throughout the transition period. Everything else has > been/is about skewing the balance to change who gets most out of the > remaining chunks. > > Keep it simple. One single fixed-size block for each new registrant > that > qualify for or already has a v6 block, and no prior v4 allocation. > > A whole /8 for might be more than necessary for this though. How > many /20 - /22 -size allocations does RIPE-NCC make each year where > the > registrant has no prior allocation? > > The intention of such a policy is IMHO primarily to protect new > innovative players from abuse (extortion) by the V4 powerhouses. Once > established they should seek expansion elsewhere (v6) or compete for > the > same resources as everyone else. One-size-fits all is therefore > appropriate, as it would be near impossible for the NCC to > differentiate. This more or less makes sense, you might define these blocks as "PI" to circumvent the whole membership discussion and wether or not a reciver of such block should need to be PI. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [#MLT-583232]: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]