[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Aug 5 15:19:58 CEST 2013
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Farmer wrote: > On 8/4/13 09:59 , bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational > > need > > for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space.... So the rules for v6 > > allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation > > policies. > > I disagree, /64 is easily justified by how the protocols are defined, so > is a /56 and probably a /48 for a business customer. You may want to > argue if the protocols should have been defined to use a whole /64 for a > single Ethernet. But that is not an RIR policy question, that is an > IETF protocol question. The RIR's have to work with the protocols as > the IETF defines them. I'm not saying you are necessary wrong, just > that this isn't the forum. perhaps. but wasted space is wasted space. > > The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, > > when there was -no- other option. > > Again I disagree, if you wanted a Class A or B you needed to justify the > request, it was relatively easy by comparison for sure. And if you > wanted more you had to explain what you did with the ones you had. But > justification didn't just come in with conservation or scarcity, it > always been there, what has changed is the standards for the > justification. see previous post. then, verification was the Buffet test... simply by making the request was verification of need. today, the verification process boarders on harrassment and restraint of trade. I think either extream is fraught with peril. > I'm not stuck on the current standards for justification, but > eliminating both "operational need" and any concept of "fairness" to > replace it is an issue for me. Good thing there is the forum for public dialog. :) /bill
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]