Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost]

On 4 Jun 2007, at 1:47pm, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

> PDP Number: 2006-02
> IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> The proposal described in 2006-02 is now at its Concluding Phase.
>
> This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and
> the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and
> Assignment Policy".
I am unsure about the relationship between this proposal, which  
redefines end-sites and allows them to receive a /32 IPv6 allocation  
and 2006-01, which proposes the introduction of IPv6 PI assignments.  
Both proposals would allow networks that do not provide typical ISP  
services to receive IPv6 address space. Non-ISP networks obviously  
have a demand that needs to be met.
2006-01 would set the minimum prefix length for these assignments at / 
48. Shorter prefixes could be assigned "if duly documented and  
justified" although how this would be done is not explained and ought  
to be clarified before that proposal is accepted, in my opinion.
2006-02 would allow end sites to receive an allocation and so they  
would get a minimum of a /32.
It appears that if both proposals were accepted then anyone wanting  
more than a /48 PI assignment could receive a /32 allocation straight  
away as long as they have a plan to make a few internal assignments.  
In essence, it seems that the main difference between the two  
proposals is that anyone willing to pay to become an LIR can receive  
a /32 prefix even if they would otherwise fail to qualify for a far  
longer /47 prefix.
I'm not sure if this is intentional. If it is not then it is possible  
that clarifying the basis for PI IPv6 assignments shorter than /48 in  
2006-01 would remove the need for 2006-02 entirely.
Regards,

--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison