[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

On 26 Jun 2007, at 10:19am, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:02:19PM -0400, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to making IPv6 address space available to all the
>> networks that need it. I just think basing the policy for doing so on
>> a concept that is so slippery we can't really define it is fatally
>> flawed. If the net effect of your proposal would be that more than
>> 95% of members would qualify for a /32 allocation it is probably
>> simpler to just make the qualifying criterion being a RIPE NCC  
>> member.
>
> Well.  Let's do a straw poll...
>
>  "who is in favour of doing so?"

However the IPv6 allocation policy is revised, it needs to work well  
with a PI assignment policy. If the only criterion for receiving a / 
32 IPv6 allocation is that you become a RIPE NCC member then you  
create a situation where networks wanting PI space must demonstrate a  
need for anything more than a /48 but anyone willing to pay €3300 can  
get thousands of times as much space without needing to show any need.

One of the goals for IPv6 address space management is:

    3.6. Fairness

    All policies and practices relating to the use of public address  
space
    should apply fairly and equitably to all existing and potential  
members
    of the Internet community, regardless of their location,  
nationality,
    size, or any other factor.

I am not sure that this goal can be met if the only barrier to a  
block 65,636 times as large as a /48 PI assignment is an annual  
payment to the RIPE NCC. As such, I'd like to see work to update the  
policy in a way that would allow a quantifiable basis for evaluating  
requests for both PI and PA. I'm not sure that the current set of  
proposals allow that.

Regards,

-- 
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison