RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

[Jørgen Hovland <]

-----Original Message-----
From: Elmar K. Bins [
	    
	    
] 

>But you're trying to lure us away from the proposal we're discussing which
>states a special case of DNS for _ccTLDs...
>
>The requirements for v6 space in the RIPE region includes having transit
>customers (at all, the 200 is just an arbitrary number). No ccTLD registry
>that's not also conducting other business may receive an allocation. That's
>the entire point of the special case being made. ccTLDs cannot deliver
>services in v6 like in v4. This - IMHO - is a v6 showstopper.


So we are back at the beginning;
I say no to anycast PI for TLDs/ccTLDs. I don't believe it is a special case
so it doesn't need a special policy. TLDs/ccTLDs could/should however be
used as an argument to allow v6 PI prefixes in general.
V6 PI compared to v4 surely is a showstopper for many, or at least for some.


Cheers,

Joergen Hovland