Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

[Nick Hilliard nick@localhost]

> Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to
> advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the
> deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.
I'd like to second Wilfred on this point.  Just because RIPE has allocated 
address space, this does not mean that the address space will be visible on 
the Internet at any particular stage.  RIPE NCC provides a general address 
space registry function, not just a public internet address registry function.
While there is an argument for using PI for private assignments, right now 
we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space yet.  But more 
importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate for a private 
entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where PI would be 
less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues.
Nick Hilliard
--
Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick@localhost