[ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

On 01/26/2011 09:36 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
>> We have not received any input so far whether you support draft policy
>> 2010-06. While silence will in general be interpreted as consensus, we
>> prefer to have a good number of statements of support as that will make it
>> unequivocally clear that consensus was indeed reached.
> I oppose on grounds of paragraph 2 of "Arguments Opposing the Proposal".
>
> The only one who needs the assignment size is RIPE NCC when evaluating
> new allocation requests or in audit. At that time, it's easy for the LIR
> to provide this info to NCC for HD ratio evaluation. Following the
> spirit of data protection, we shouldn't put (in a mandatory manner) more
> potentially sensitive data into public databases without a good
> justification for the need to have that data public.
>
> As a second reason, it allows folks running block lists to again start
> blocking dynamic customer IP prefixes by automatically looking up the
> assignment-size. Of course that makes no sense (as the /xy prefix will
> belong to another customer next day), but as soon as those assignment-size
> attributes will pop up, misguided folks _will_ start using them for
> broken heuristics and cause colateral damage.
>
> My opposition is solely about the assignment-size attribute being
> mandatory.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
Daniel, I share your concerns as I had similar ones. You could always 
avoid using "remarks" and/or description for such published blocks. Of 
course, it's not bulletproof.

In any case, I support the proposal

regards,

Yannis