[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Hi,

On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:49, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> wrote:

> On 10/24/11 8:56 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>> My personal opinion on 6RD is:  if it is to be treated as a special
>> case, it should be a special case, meaning it is a temporary
>> allocation (like all others, but with emphasis), valid only so long it
>> is used.  A 6RD allocation should be 100% 6RD and no other use of it
>> should be allowed, so that it can easily be returned once the 6RD
>> deployment is no longer in use.
>> 
>> That, or, roll native. ;)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Special case means special IPv6 space and special allocations out of that and that means burning RIPE-NCC resources claiming that space back later on - and good luck with that, as we know that allocations rarely can be returned, because somebody deployed something else in that space and is now sorry :)
> 
> Cheers, Jan

With the enormous economical disaster looming, isnt providing jobs a good thing? ;)

Seriously though, I cannot support a policy proposal for 6RD or other transition technologies that burns this much v4 space ( ie , full mapping of ipv4), that does not explicitly attach requirements on the space to A) not be used for anything but the transition technology, and B) clearly be marked by the NCC as being of transition tech $FOO, and finally C) very explicitly be only valid as long as the use stays.

Failing any of these points, I do not support the proposal on the basis that it is careless use of v6 space.

Regarding mobile networks, there is little differentiation here to other link layers as far as address assignment goes I think. And again, numbering must be done in the way I describe if this or similar proposals is to have my support.

So, I guess to make it clear, until the proposal has texts like the above in it, I do not support the proposal.

Best,
Martin