[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

James A. T. Rice wrote:
> I strongly oppose on a number of counts:
> 
> Not every inetnum holder in the RIPE database justifies a PI IPv4 
> assignment, why on earth should they receive a PI IPv6 assignment?
> 
> Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them.
> 
> Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on 
> giving them even if they had a use for it.
> 
> Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a 
> single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to 
> entities when they have no need for them.
> 
> The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes.

Agreed on all counts - I strongly disagree with this proposal.

Nick
-- 
Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie