[address-policy-wg] late comments on 2009-06

Hi Ruediger,

> I certainly support the the motion to remove from the contraints for
> routing announcements from the address allocation policy; I voiced
> my support already at the last RIPE meeting with strong words.

Thanks.

> Recently a potential downside of the removal of routing constraints from
> allocation policy came to my attention:  NCC resource analysts might begin
> to encourage or even force LIRs to plan to deaggragate announcements
> when discussing requests for address space.

I thought the situation at the moment was that the only justification
for additional IPv6 addresss space was utilisation (section 5.2 of the
policy).  Routing considerations are not taken into account, so what we
were doing was allowing more people to use IPv6.  Are you suggesting the
potential deaggregators can already get multiple prefixes per LIR?  If
that is the case, then perhaps we do not need to relax the aggregation
requirement.

The proposal does not remove section 3.4 of the policy (goal of
aggregation), but attempts to balance that and 3.5 (goal of conservation).

Regards,
Rob

-- 
JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose
Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science
and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG