Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal

["Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <]

RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator wrote:

> PDP Number: 2005-08
> Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy

Proposing a bit of word-smithing:

" Rationale:
[ ... ]
As a consequence of that, LIRs will need far more address space, depleting the available
pool of addresses at an accelerated rate and reducing the lifetime of the IPv6 protocol."

Proposed replacement text:
As a consequence of that, LIRs and ISPs will distribute (to End Sites) IPv6 addresses in
blocks much greater than presumably necessary for an average end site - thus depleting the
pool of unallocated or unassigned IPv6 addresses at an accelerated speed.

Why?
I have a particular problem with the assertion that the "lifetime" of the protocol is
reduced! The protocol itself will remain valid anyway, we would just have to modify the
procedures for distributing the addresses.

And the inclusion of "unallocated or unassigned" IPv6 addresses: because formally the pool
of available addresses is of fixed size.


Thanks for consideration!
Wilfried.