[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Fri Mar 28 09:38:13 CET 2008
On 19 Mar 2008, at 14:51, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-01 > Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Forgive me if I have missed consensus (or perhaps an epiphany), but doesn't this suggestion rely on the arguments from PDP number 2006-01 being solved ? I oppose the proposal as it stands, but I support any efforts to encourage v6 adoption, and also recognise that this means fair and available v6 PI policy must be adopted. I would prefer to see global consensus that any organisation with a requirement for address resources can request, and have ONE block of PI. My rationale is that it should be extremely clear that originating one prefix at the end-site edge is both intended, and desirable. The RIRs should have permission to sanction additional blocks where seen as operationally imperative. Organisations should also have to justify a technical requirement for PI rather than PA, and additionally, should interface with the RIPE NCC via an LIR. This does not stop organisations registering additional, 'shill' organisations for the purposes of requesting more PI, but if someone is that desperate to design flaws into their network, there is little that can be described in a policy development environment that will help them. Best wishes Andy Davidson
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]