[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Geoff Huston
gih at apnic.net
Wed Oct 5 14:42:07 CEST 2005
Yes, I can see your point, and agree with it. regards, Geoff At 08:12 PM 5/10/2005, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator wrote: > > > PDP Number: 2005-08 > > Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy > >Proposing a bit of word-smithing: > >" Rationale: >[ ... ] >As a consequence of that, LIRs will need far more address space, depleting >the available >pool of addresses at an accelerated rate and reducing the lifetime of the >IPv6 protocol." > >Proposed replacement text: >As a consequence of that, LIRs and ISPs will distribute (to End Sites) >IPv6 addresses in >blocks much greater than presumably necessary for an average end site - >thus depleting the >pool of unallocated or unassigned IPv6 addresses at an accelerated speed. > >Why? >I have a particular problem with the assertion that the "lifetime" of the >protocol is >reduced! The protocol itself will remain valid anyway, we would just have >to modify the >procedures for distributing the addresses. > >And the inclusion of "unallocated or unassigned" IPv6 addresses: because >formally the pool >of available addresses is of fixed size. > > >Thanks for consideration! >Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]