[address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] 2011-04 Decision to move to Last Call (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Dear AP WG,

Sander and I have looked at the mails sent by you about the proposal
2011-04 (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation),
and I tried to categorize everything hat has been said into bins
like "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", "clarification"
- the result of that is at the end of this mail.

In the initial discussion phase, I counted nearly 150 e-mails.  Of those
that expressed a clear "support" or "opposition" opinion, the majority
were in support for the proposal, thus we moved on to review phase, with 
some textual changes as suggested by you.

In review phase, 3 people voiced their support, nobody voiced objections,
and none of the people that had objections in discussion phase stated 
their opinion (neither positive nor negative).  Given that, we assume 
that those that had reservations agreed to disagree but didn't want to 
stop the proposal, or agreed with our assessment that we have enough 
support to go ahead.

The main argument for objection that we could make out was "this is not
good stewardship, to give people more addresses than they need, without
providing any documentation".  I can see the argument, but I'm also
convinced that part of good stewardship is 'finding the right balance 
between "too big" and "too small"' - and since a number of operators 
have spoken up and said that being able to increase their /32 to a /29 
"just so" would ease their deployment, we took that as a strong enough 
counterargument.

The argument voiced that "we should not make a specific proposal for 6rd" 
was already taken into account - the proposal is technology-agnostic.

So, we think that we have enough support and no sustained opposition
to call consensus, and move to Last Call.  Emilio will do the formal
announcement from the PDO tomorrow.

If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the
conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know.

Gert Doering,
	Address Policy WG Chair


-----------------------------------------------------
Discussion Phase

pro

  Michael Adams    (want bits, not 6rd)
  Roger Jørgensen
  Anfinsen, Ragnar
  Sascha Lenz      (want bits, not 6rd)
  Andy Davidson    (with "ask for it" clause)
  Daniel Holme     (no protocol specifics!)
  James Blessing   (with additions for existing address holders, taken into v2.0
  Jasper Jans
  David Freedman
  Roman Sokolov
  Tero Toikkanen
  Job Snijders
  Tom Hodgson      (more bits, not tied to mechanisms)
  Wilhelm Boeddinghaus
  Rinse Kloek
  Sascha Luck
  Florian Fuessl
  Jerzy Pawlus
  Daniel Roesen

against, with "want to see proper documentation that says 6rd"

  James Blessing [answered by Jan Zorz, discussion ended, later agreed]
  Martin Millnert
  Mikael Abrahamsson [give everybody who says "6rd" a /31]
  Nick Hilliard [answered by Jan Zorz, "is ask-for-it enough?"]
  Tim Chown

against, with "make it easy to get a /29, but not automatic, ask for it"

  Remco Van Mook [answered by Jan Zorz, taken into v2.0 -> agreed]

against, with "6rd is a bad protocol and there should be a temporary block"

  Turchanyi Geza 
     [answered by Jan Zorz, "this is not 6rd-specific", Ole Troan,
      Ragnar Anfinsen]

clarification

  Mikael Abrahamsson (reservation of a /26?) [answered by chair and proposer]
  Andy Davidson (would reservation be OK from global policy PoV?)
  Martin Stanislav (please clarify exact rules for /29../31, answered by prop.]

unclear whether in favour or against

  Dan Luedtke
  Martin Millnert (*if* 6rd as a special case, make it temporary-only)
    [answered by Jan Zorz]
  Daniel Suchy
  chrish at consol.net

"not big enough" side-track

  Randy Bush (let's go to a /16) 
    [answered by chair, David Conrad, Roger Jørgensen, Jan Zorz, 
     Florian Weimer]

"make subsequent allocation policy easier (instead of initial?)" side-track

  Dan Luedtke
    [answered by Michael Adams, chair]
  Daniel Roesen
    [answered by chair, Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook]

"does 6rd need a /31 or /24?" side-track

  Mikael Abrahamsson, Jan Zorz

"which operators are asking for 6rd" side-track

  Martin Millnert, Jan Zorz, Michael Adams
  
"alternatives to 6rd" and "is it infinite?" side-track

  Ahmed Abu-Abed
    [answered by Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook, Ole Troan, Nick Hilliard,
     Roger Jørgensen]

"why not make it a /26 or /24 right away?" side-track

  Roger Jørgensen, Leo Vegoda, Nick Hilliard, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz
  

-------------------------------------------------------------------
review phase

pro

  Michael Adams
  Tiberiu Ungureanu
  Gleb Katenin

side-track: "subsequent allocations

  Michael Adams, Tiberiu Ungureanu, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz, Nick Hilliard

side-track: "how much address space does google have?"

  chrish at consol.net, Gleb Katenin

-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279