v6 allocation policy fo rLIRs

[Randy Bush <]

[ note change of subject ]

> If there is no prior policy, people will automatically consider something
> new as _the_ policy, and start to forget that there might be other
> options..
> 
> That is, so that 2 years down the road if you as an IX have address space
> needs that can't be met with the proposed solution, won't
> (necessarily/always) be met with "Sorry, this is how we allocate addresses
> to IX's.  Have a good day." because people forgot it was only supposed to
> be _a_ way.
> 
> I'm not saying that that would happen, but opinions on what the policy was
> all about might change in 6, 12, 18 or whatever months unless some kind of
> "applicability statement" is added.
> 
> The last RIPE IPv6 allocation policy is from 1999.  Who thought it would
> last this long?  Who knows how long the interim policy would be active?
> It's better not to take chances.

it is all i can do to get my job done dealing with reality.  worrying about
black helicopters, martian landings, etc. requires more time and paranoia
than i can manage.

yup, we need a new v6 lir allocation policy.  yup, we saw proposals for a
new global v6 allocation policy at apnic.  there may be a gap between the
apnic view and others, they prefer a /29 starting allocation, which even
steve deering thinks is too large.  imiho, a /35 or a /36 is more in scale
and sellable in the west.  but i may be full of it.  we'll be discussing the
issues in prague and miami next month.  in the meantime, check out

    <http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/sigs/joint_ipv6.html>
    
randy