Re: new IPv6 policy draft - real soon now

[Brian E Carpenter <]

Kim Hubbard wrote:
...
> Bob,
> 
> I understand your concerns but I honestly think you can accomplish your goals
> using the slow start method.  If an organization requesting address space can
> justify a larger block than a /35 for heirarchical reasons or other than they
> will receive it.  I believe many organizations will start out *very* slow
> at first so I don't see a reason to issue the entire sub-tla.  Instead, issuing
> a smaller block (8K+) will give the RIRs ample time to verify that the
> organizations are utilizing the space and sending reassignment info, etc.

Kim,

This is the argument you gave us in Minn. and I bought it, as long as 
it is *not* transformed later into an excuse for sub-allocating
the /29s and thereby inviting the creation of an IPv6 toxic waste
dump. That's why I'm eagerly awaiting the exact wording of the
new draft.

   Brian