[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Hi Gert,

As I attempted to explain this was 3 separate uses that required 
separate announcements.

- Cynthia

On 2019-02-27 11:05, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:47:04AM +0000, Krasimir Ganchev via address-policy-wg wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more with Cynthia, policies are too strict and require justification which doesn't allow expansion over time and is just based on immediate needs.
>>
>> All that especially in the era of exhausted IPv4 is practically unbelievable.
>>
>> No offense of course, just the reality.
> This claim is just not true.
>
> There might be some cases where expectations and grandeur plans do not
> match reality, and in this cases it's reasonable that the NCC is strict
> and will not hand out a /19 to someone who can fulfill all their expected
> needs with a /32.
>
> There are other cases where the NCC is asking lots of questions, and maybe
> there are cases where the NCC is too strict.  So we need to talk about these
> and see if it's "lack of reasonable documentation on the user side" or
> "annoying interpretation on the NCC side".
>
> OTOH, a /48 for an end-user site or a /29 for an ISP is pretty huge
> (we have not even extended our /32 to a /29 as we assume that we will
> never manage to fill the /32) - and documented reality shows that *if*
> you need more, you can get it today.
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- APWG chair, and IPv6 user from day one, where the policies were
>             *much* stricter than today