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

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:12:14PM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:57:19AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Nobody (from the RIPE region) ever spoke in favour of it, as far as I
> > can remember...
> 
> Actually ... It was a compromise between the different regions. 

Yes, I remember :-) - I just said "nobody from *us* direly wanted to see
it there".  Obviously someone from the other regions must have.

> As
> such, it worked just fine since we managed to get a policy in place
> that worked better than the one before. Times change though and it
> seems that nobody cares at all anymore about the fact that we are
> dealing here with global resource that has global impact and that
> should have a global policy. 

The differences in IPv4 policy are much more fundamental, and things
are still running quite well.  So minor differences in the v6 policy
shouldn't do great harm.

OTOH, a globally unique policy is nearly impossible to change (in any
sort of reasonable timeframe) given the current RIR/LIR structures - as
we can see here.  

These issues ("can we give an allocation to a 3GPP network?  to a big 
transit provider with few direct customers?") are open issues since 
years now, and there doesn't seem to be any coordinated effort to 
change the global policy, or to integrate LACNICs local changes
(if there *is* a global effort going on, it's hiding well, and I 
apologize for noticing it).

[..]
> > > So I don't think there was such a strong need for removeing the rule, 
> > > just if we clarified it sufficiently so that people would not (again!) 
> > > interpret it too strongly.
> > 
> > We would definitely need to clarify it "very much so".  
> 
> This is not about clarifying. The policy is very clear: 'you need a
> plan to have 200 customers'. 

"...in two years time".  So what happens if you assume that it's 
unlikely that you'll reach that number (which would be "normal" for
any network these days, unfortunately)?  Do known-unrealistic plans
count as well?

Also it's not that clear that it have to be *customers* (what about
LIRs that have only few direct re-selling ISP customers, but zillions
of end sites connected to *them*?) or just "/48 assignments".  

What's a "site", by the way?

> I cannot help it that people have trouble
> reading that. Getting rid of the requirement for 'a plan' or for '200
> customers' is a 'policy change' not a 'clarification'. And policy
> changes should be discussed out in the open and not be sneaked in as
> if they are just a minor 'clarification'.

Hmmm, you must have missed something in my summary e-mail :-) - let
me repeat that part:

--------- snip ----------
Judging from the discussion, and "counting voices", I propose to
proceed as follows:

 - study the "other regions policy" report from the RIPE NCC

 - try to come up with new rules for the allocation criteria, dropping
   the 200-assignments part, and integrate whatever is necessary to  
   balance the remainder.

 - circulate that proposal, present it at RIPE49, and if there is
   consensus, integrate it into the official RIPE policy.
--------- snip ----------

I won't consider that "sneaking it in".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299