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

Hi,

> 
> you still haven't provided any reasons why there should be a sudden spike and evidence suggesting that there will be.
> Why are you insisting on this? What is your secret agenda? Do you have any information you're not sharing?
> 
>  
> I think you should look into tho other end of the binoculars.
> 
> If you propose something, you shold be able to think about the consequences. What might happen in two months, in one year, in 3 years and in ten years.
> 
> This is your duty!
> 
> The problem is that some people think that they can make policy proposals without thinking the technical and financial consequences.
> 

You still just repeat your point, without actually giving any argument or counter-argument to my explanations why i don't think
your point is valid and why i think we need the policy change to ensure IPv6 adoption going more smoothly and faster.
(Actually, this is a long-term view on the problem, i gave the argument why restricting IPv6 access might have an even more
expensive impact on the (IPv4-)DFZ, read again).

As long as you're not able to actually discuss anything, the best word for what i think you're doing is "lobbying", probably because you're company
told you to or something. I have no idea why else you would stick to your point without being able to support it. :-(

> I you can prove that increasing the size of the routing table would not cause neither slow down nor extra cost then I will carefully listen to your arguments, as you definitely might invented something fundamentally new.
> 

Do you even know what you're talking about? Did you even read my arguments i gave at least twice? Does your company even have some business plan?
The routing tables will grow, always, they always have. Plan for it. Everyone else does. This is nothing new. 

It's absolutely MAD that you think routing tables won't grow if you oppose this small policy change with no real impact whatsoever. 
PLEASE, write up your own proposal about what you would do in the big picture to slow routing table growth and see what happens. The PDP is open to anyone!
And don't forget to do that in the other RIR regions, too!

> However, have you read the paper mentionned by Randy Bush?

Yes, nice paper about route flap dampening. Exactly what i was asking for. As so often, good work Randy et. al.!
Now, where does it say anything about the IPv6 routing table growth? Might have missed that page, i read it some days ago, can you give me the page number? Thanks.
Or are you talking about another paper? 

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect