[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 17:19:12 CEST 2012
Hello Richard, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > > registry. > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy > across all RIRs is desirable, though. > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. > > > > Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, > > however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be > valid > > only for a limited period of time. > > So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because > they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or > LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources? > Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this > policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure > simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed > use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely? > > Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush period. Even worse: LIRs tend to merge. In the IPv4 world DEC asked for a class A space and got it. So did HP and Compaq Computers. Who owns these three class A today? HP, because Compaq swallowed DEC, then HP swallowed Compaq. The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this! As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing the rules. Best, Géza . > -- > Richard > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120411/bcb115e9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]