[address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[ sorry, Gert, for only sending to you privately on my 1st attempt :-/ ]

Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> 
> I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, 
> because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal
> itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or
> "no consensus" here.
> 
> Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written
> right now* is a good thing to have.
I fully support the proposal.

Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to
advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the
deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

Even if it is kept, the holder of a prefix can still "advertise" the prefix
to - well to whom and where?? Central IPv6 Routing Police? - and still *not*
carry traffic for any particular application.
What have we got, other than a useless occupied slot in some routing tables...

I'd propose to reword it slightly along the lines of:

"If the prefix is advertised or announced towards the routing core it has
to be advertised as, or aggregated into, a single announcement."

I'm sure "Routing" can help with this if needed.

Wilfried

> regards,
> 
> Gert Doering,
> 	Address Policy WG Chair

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iQCVAwUBReK8yd/RXX7wrLNpAQJdnwP/XrZo9I1oYMA5nkvY+bVM6IGuw4O0xvVq
CGiwfnkkmbL7gnABrbu386ELVTvc2frF68p/T0V5OeiInJBy3Yi6rt8kI6mI1cYE
UAhbbjQ4x4KRO69HVH1I8jGh+yd8AjzJnd+g8vbXcA11c80EPEDlP33N5FJOEJhe
qZ92VsSh7JA=
=Psu+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----