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

Hi David,

I'm very interested to heard about what "interesting problems" do you think the lack of a global policy will create.

May be having those problems openly discussed could provide the required propeller in order to ensure a global coordination again.

Regards,
Jordi


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kessens" <david.kessens at nokia.com>
To: "Jon Lawrence" <jon at lawrence.org.uk>
Cc: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"


> 
> Jon,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:53:00PM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> > On Friday 25 June 2004 22:12, David Kessens wrote:
> > > The policy is very clear: 'you need a plan to have 200 customers'. 
> > 
> > That's the whole point. The policy says *plan* to make 200 /48 assignments to 
> > other organisations within two years.
> > What's the point in that ? anyone can *plan* to make 200 assignments.
> 
> The point was to have a slight barrier to make sure that only people
> that had a serious intent to deploy ipv6 networks would apply for
> addresses. As such, it actually worked and it was not too big of a
> hurdle for people who wish to deploy ipv6 either, although admittedly,
> it should be noted that at least some people seem to have trouble
> understanding the difference between a 'plan' and actually having 200
> customers.
> 
> This was at the time a compromise between the different regions and
> the most liberal rule that was acceptable for all regions. The
> alternative was to keep the old policy and I am pretty sure that you
> would like that one even less. From that point of view, it made a lot
> of sense for the RIPE region to accept this rule because it was better
> then what we had before.
> 
> Let's not waste any more time on the '200 customer' rule. The reasons
> for it's existence are not there anymore. I was just trying to give a
> bit of background information why this rule existe and what it was
> designed for.
> 
> Now that the other regions seem to depart from this policy and apply
> policies that are more liberal but also divergent from each other, it
> seems that there is unfortunately no reason any longer to aim for a
> global policy. The regional registries seem to be unwilling to support
> a process where we started to develop such policies on a global level
> through a bottom-up process. We tried for the ipv6 policies with a
> global maillist and it failed. This is a serious problem inherent with
> the regional setup that just doesn't make a lot of sense for resources
> that need global management. One day this is going to cause
> interesting problems. The system as it is setup today is working as a
> never ending escalation of liberalizing the rules without any regard
> for the reality that all those prefixes are going to end up in one
> global routing table.
> 
> David Kessens
> ---
> 
> 


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.