[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

On 22 Jun, 2004, at 9:59, Gert Doering wrote:

> [..]
>> Also disturbing is that, while there are groups working on proposing
>> new solutions to the multihoming problem, the policy seems to reflect 
>> a
>> conviction that they will fail and therefore there need to be
>> constraints imposed at a table size of a few hundred entries.
>
> I can't see the connection.  The whole point of the multi6 group is
> to find multihoming solutions that do *not* need a global routing table
> slot.

What the solution is does not matter as long as it is workable.

The point I raised has nothing to do with how multi6 intends to achieve 
it's goals, rather with the fact that the current attitude towards 
policy making for IPv6 seems to have the underlying assumption that 
there is a need to drastically reduce the number of organisations that 
can get allocations to reduce the number of entries in the routing 
table. This happens at the same time that there is a group working on 
solutions so it shows little faith in the outcome of the work.

I am arguing for a change in mentality that, while keeping memory of 
the good lessons learned in IPv4 (eg. allocation size related to 
network size, via variable sized prefixes) does not keep newcomers from 
deploying IPv6 (eg. a LIR -> an allocation or variations)

Joao