[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)

On 08/07/2011 16:15, David Monosov wrote:
> This is also precisely why I find this particular comment unnecessary and
> confusing, especially to members of the community which are not involved in the
> entire scope of discussion on the mailing lists, and instead evaluate policy
> proposals and their impact on their networks at 'face value' based on the
> content of the proposals themselves.
>
> If the board has specific operational or fiscal concerns, or even a formal board
> opinion, it would be a disservice to the policy process *not* to include them
> for consideration by the community.
>
> However, the board is highly regarded and respected by the community, which is
> exactly why I find a generic "we are not feeling it" remark to be inappropriate,
> and feel it should have instead been omitted completely in favor of individual
> comments on the mailing list, or included as a more specific and concrete set of
> concerns providing a constructive contribution to the community's ability to
> evaluate the impact of the proposal.
>
OK, with my personal hat on and not speaking for the board in any sense.

1. As far as I can see there are no fiscal issues here apart from the 
usual issue of more PI's meaning more NCC work meaning more staff 
(potentially) and hence more costs.

2. Speaking as an engineer, if you are too small to want PA space then 
you are small enough to renumber if you move provider. It's not really 
an issue these days (at least compared with the old days when /etc/hosts 
had to be updated on every machine in your network). And consuming a fib 
slot just to save yourself a bit of pain should you want to move 
provider strikes me as selfish.

However, I'm an official old fart, and am probably harking back to an 
internet that no longer exists. I leave it up to the community to decide 
whether this is a constructive contribution or not.

Nigel

PS And thanks, David, for your very kind comments on the board.