[address-policy-wg] Comments on 2006-01 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

> > I don't see an "implicit fixed lifetime" here, but a committed 
lifetime
> > to some point beyond our current horizon.
> 
> how is this unlike the current swamp, other than it being potentially
> a *lot* larger?

The current swamp is a block of allocations where
the users have no formal agreement with any RIR.
All IPv6 blocks are issued with a formal RIR agreement.

The current swamp is a block in which a single 
organization often holds several routable prefixes,
i.e. a small ISP asked for 2 class C's and received
2 non-aggregatable /24's. Most large users of IPv6
will receive only a single routable prefix and most
PI IPv6 allocations, though smaller, will also be 
a single routable prefix.

The current swamp is a block in which the allocations
are not structured according to network topology. All
IPv6 blocks are structured, at the highest level, according
to continental-scale areas. At a more detailed level,
PI blocks smaller than a /32, could be allocated
according to some kind of topological addressing plan.
For instance, RIPE could have a Scandinavia aggregate,
CIS aggregate, Central aggregate (FR, DE, BE, CH, NL, PL, AT),
Western aggregate (UK, IE, ES, PT) and Southeast aggregate
(Ex-Yugoslavia, GR, TR, IL). There are plenty of grey
areas when deciding which agreggate someone belongs in
but the best way to handle it is not to draw lines on
a map, but to ask the applicant where the bulk of 
their traffic will go and give them addresses from that
aggregate.

We are not doomed to repeat the swamp and we already
have managed to avoid repeating some of the biggest
problems that led to the creation of the swamp.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. the best way to deal with the bogeymen is
to shed some light on the situation.