Re: [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Randy Bush <]

>>>> RIPE NCC is known to be very reasonable towards transit networks,
>>>> and I could bet good money you could get an allocation without a
>>>> hitch.
>>> So what you say is "keep the current rule as the NCC will disobey it
>>> anyway". Why can't we just fix the broken policy....
>> how much should policy be twisted to cover up broken/incomplete
>> technology?  the need will be continual and infinite.
> You know Randy, you don't HAVE to do v6. You can stay at v4...:-)

the question is not about me, but thanks for turning the discussion
personal.  have you stopped beating your routers?

the issue is can we 'fix' policy to cover for the fact that v6
was only 1/3 designed, long addresses but no routing and no
transition plan?

i am suggesting that the policy fixes will be infinite and ever
more twisty, as there is only so much one can do to cover that
the underlying technology is not even half-assed.

randy