[address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] [ppml] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC

Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 14:18:25 Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
>> Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
>>> This does not meet the requirements above. So you won't get it.
>> It fully does, how else did AFRINIC assign a /32 to themselves?
> 
> This would have been your question instead of concluding so negatively on a 
> global note.

Excuses, I will try to add a short bullet pointed list of items next time with
a nice animated powerpoint presentation and an executive summary to make my
question come across to you.

I've sent it to all the RIR lists as it affects global policy decisions: that
a single RIR is acting in their own good without even having asked their own
membership about this situation.

Their statement of "we are a RIR we know what we are doing" is not good
enough, especially as there is no active policy actually allowing them to
request such a allocation even under their own policies.

Any policy that simply allows any party to get a /32 without justification is
the same as when IPv4 started out, where everybody simply got a /8. Indeed at
that timepoint there was enough space, but what is the main complaint from
various people nowadays: that they should have gotten less as they didn't need
it in the first place.

We can indeed give IPv6 prefixes for free, give every household a /32, and
we'll probably not run out yet; and if we do we have another 7 tries when
2000::/3 runs full. But is that really what people want? To simply squat on
the address space as much as possible, so that you at least have it?

Not a good thing, especially not a good thing when a RIR does it themselves.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070622/e02f608b/attachment.sig>