[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Tue Oct 25 01:04:31 CEST 2011
On 10/24/11 11:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a >>> /20. >> it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :) > > well, they could convert to a /16. but they would only be allowed to > change their whois data on odd numbered wednesdays while standing on > their left foot There were suggestions to go directly to /24 (as then you can easily deploy 6RD, give out /56 and have no incentive to go to native v6), but this did not seem a good idea to many of people we discussed with about this matter. When mentioning this to you, you had no preferences and/or objections :) I know it's politics and policy, but we just exposed the problem from real operations world towards policy-making community and community decided we need to deal with this issue. We are also well aware, that "6rd is wrong way of doing right thing (or even vice-versa)", but it out there and happening. whois data and wednesdays, well, this is implementation issue, not policy so we can fix that later on :) :) :) cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]