[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Sat Sep 12 13:43:41 CEST 2009
Hello Per, > The only argument in favor of changing policies at this stage is IMHO > to, if possible, be able to dodge accusations of anti-competitive > practises against new entrants. That is indeed the concern that I have. > All that is required for that is to > reserve a relatively small block from which everyone who qualify for > a /32 or larger PA v6-block gets for example a /22 v4-block if they > have > no prior v4 allocation. Such a policy would solve my main concern. I would remove the reference to IPv6 because earlier parts of this discussion showed that we don't want to put IPv6 requirements in IPv4 policy. I think just reserving a block like this for initial allocations would be enough. > Everything else that has been suggested are > policy tweaks which aim to benefit certain types of operators, but > they > make no significant difference to the bigger picture. It seems more and more people are happy with the current policies and don't want to change them for the final /8. Would a simple policy like Per suggests be acceptable for everybody? Thanks, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]