Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points
Stephen Burley stephenb at uk.uu.net
Wed Sep 5 16:03:08 CEST 2001
> Dave, > > Dave Pratt wrote: > > > > Sorry, I cannot agree with the proposed policy as it stands since: > > > > 1. The idea of issuing a single/multiple /64 is totally unnecessary. > > 2. As stated many times by many, the IXP need globally routed space, which > > they cannot get under present normal sTLA allocation rules. > > > > Allocate a /48 (or larger), and remove the comments about not being "globally > > routable" and I would be happy. > > While I understand you don`t agree with the policy as its stands, it is > an *interim* proposal to facilitate v6 take-up within the ixp > community. The trouble with *interim* policies is once they are in place they never change or are very difficult to change. > > No doubt if we shift the policy to fit your wishes, someone else will > disagree. In the interests of pragmatic progression, lets debate these > issues from the perspective of a working model and get this policy > approved. > > Regards, Steve.
[ lir-wg Archives ]