[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon May 5 22:02:36 CEST 2014
Hi, >> I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't >> want/need IPv6 PA space. > > Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here: > > «In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 > allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment > (per ripe-589 section 7.1)» Yep, seen that. > If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and > return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is > *hard* - it is *a lot* of work. Ack > So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have > any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try > to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 > were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6 > adoption» as before. It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that? Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]