[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Apr 11 20:32:39 CEST 2012
Hi, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:04:45PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. > > > > Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have > > the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more > > due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first > > place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". > > This divergence is a problem, I think. Evidence so far doesn't seem to back that, and I have not seen anyone else stand up recently and voice their wish for a unified global IPv6 assignment and allocation policy. Regions are different, and this is why we *have* 5 regional IRs, to take that into account. > > To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that > > suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" > > policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", > > not everybody else had that), and so on. > > > This is an argument or a counter argument? It is to show that you should make up your mind. Regarding IPv6 PI, you were *opposing* a proposal that made the polices more comparable on a global basis. Now what, do you want equal policies, or not? > My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the > creation of a common policy harder. Creation of a common policy is not a particular goal of this working group, unless someone brings up a policy proposal explicitely tagged as "global policy proposal" (which we need as soon as it affects ICANN to RIR distribution). There will always be cases where one region introduces a change that will be picked up by other regions - or not, if that change is not suitable for other regions. So policy might re-synch itself, or might not. So while we listen to you, that particular argument in itself is no reason to stop or change 2011-04. We do regional policy. (And yes, I'm aware that there is only one global routing table. 2011-04 will not introduce extra prefixes, and one /29 will take exactly as much TCAM space as one /32). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120411/381b6b42/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]