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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-06-22, at 11.17, Joao Damas wrote:

>> 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.

Well, there is also a time scale factor. If multi6 concluded today, 
someone still needs to do the protocol work, which is at least two 
years. Add to that implementation. 10 years might be optimistic. Then 
again we haven't gotten 500 routes in the past 10 years. And even if 
all LIRs got a prefix that would still only be some 20k prefixes at 
best.

But you are right, that there is a roll-out plan missing. At some point 
we need to decide who's job it is to come up with the implementation 
strategy and a policy for what to do in the mean time. I would like to 
say that multi6 has moved far enough that it's time to start discussing 
this. But I think I will save that for after the San Diego IETF 
meeting. I think also the multi6 WG chairs needs to talk with the ADs 
of how to proceed with this issue...

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNgbt6arNKXTPFCVEQLCewCeMsJ6fQuijsW2UW++/PHBXxs74VkAoOXf
DZby4qMAQ3rYOlDUo0Irxteq
=UDUs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----