[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On 6-apr-05, at 19:20, Mike Hughes wrote:

> The 200 /48s rule does fail the job, in the present environment.

Still waiting for the evidence on this one... Can someone show me a 
request that has been turned down that shouldn't have?

You all know my feelings about IPv4-like PI in IPv6 by now, but on the 
issue of making PA available to people who should have them (= not used 
as stealth PI) I'm keeping an open mind. Still, just repeating "200 is 
a problem" to eachother doesn't help, we need to know where the 200 
limit gets in the way in the real world.

> Because there are networks which are not end sites, who do make 
> assignments
> to customers (just not 200 of them right now - or within 2 years), 
> which
> cannot wait for the i*tf to get off the pot with whatever multi6/shim6
> thing they are doing, which cannot wait the N years it will take for
> vendors to implement whatever comes out of the i*tf.

Just curious: why is waiting suddenly a problem? IPv6 has been a long 
time in coming for a long time. (And the letter you're looking for is 
"E".)

> This can be achieved through an IPv6 address allocation which is
> functionally similar to the IPv4 PA allocation they are currently 
> entitled
> to. Currently, the RIRs issue these in /32 chunks.

"Entitled to"???

> Right now, the only strong objections I'm seeing appear to be somewhat
> Canutist, despite being otherwise well-informed.

Wow, that word apears only 4 times on the entire internet. What does it 
mean?

> In case my opinion isn't clear, I support the proposal as it stands.

> If there is a genuine and well-founded concern about pulling the "200
> number" without some other form of safeguard, maybe we go with the 
> proposal
> as it stands, but add a commitment (by the Chairs? group as a whole? 
> NCC?)
> to table a review of the situation once the i*tf do come up with 
> something,
> and there is vendor support for it?

I'm still waiting for those requests that were turned down, but in the 
mean time I think it might be a good idea to instruct the hostmasters 
that for a limited time (such as 2 years) and limited number of 
prefixes (say 256) they should evaluate PA requests that don't meet the 
200 requirement and determine that it's not for "stealth PI" or some 
other less than legitimate purpose without specifying explicit limits. 
When this experimental period is finished we can then evaluate which 
requests were granted and which were denied and distill a new policy at 
that point.

Remember that very few organizations are adopting IPv6 wholesale, and 
IPv6 is relatively easy to renumber, so if a few organizations have to 
gain experience with provider address space now and we change the 
policy later so those organizations can get their own block at that 
point rather than immediately, that's not a disaster.