[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Jun 22 13:42:47 CEST 2004
Joao Damas; > The point I raised has nothing to do with how multi6 intends to achieve > it's goals, rather with the fact that the current attitude towards > policy making for IPv6 seems to have the underlying assumption that > there is a need to drastically reduce the number of organisations that > can get allocations to reduce the number of entries in the routing > table. This happens at the same time that there is a group working on > solutions so it shows little faith in the outcome of the work. In multi6 WG, there certainly is a proposal to reduce the number of TLAs. > I am arguing for a change in mentality that, while keeping memory of the > good lessons learned in IPv4 (eg. allocation size related to network > size, via variable sized prefixes) does not keep newcomers from > deploying IPv6 (eg. a LIR -> an allocation or variations) Then, accept the fact that we can't have so much TLAs. A simple way to do so is to allow TLAs only to national IRs. There are other ways, too. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]