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

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> This is something that I really don't understand.  The hostmasters are
> here to help educate LIRs that don't know what they are doing - and it
> will be for the better of everyone.

I whole  heartedly agree.

> If they are so clueless, then they shouldn't be allowed to do BGP, and
> possible "wreak havoc" on everybody else's routing tables.

Exactly (and DO), part of what Netegral does is clear up after this sort 
of stupidity.  I'm in favour of IQ tests with a rising scale at every 
level of IT.  Maybe that'll kill off the spammers.

> Indeed.  The idea behind the proposed change is (sort of) "those who can be 
> bothered to understand the system and become a LIR are allowed".

A perfectly good philosophy.

> What you are asking for ("those people are clueless but so important that
> they need to be visible in everyones routing table") is a different
> proposal.

Well not quite, personally if the /32 rule goes ahead (pretty much as 
good as any other suggestion to date) there is no problem.  However, I 
also have to battle their mindset on a daily basis and that will hamper 
the uptake of IPv6.

Remember in the web hosting world, the attitude of "I can get it for 
free so screw the rules" is extremely prevalent.  It's very much they 
want the cake and to eat it too.  We have to remember that most of these 
individuals and companies have no clue of the impact that they can cause 
(and frequently do).  I wondered if we could pre-empt this in policy 
instead of having them again flaunting the rules and doing it anyway.

-- 

Best regards,

Cameron Gray
Director, Netegral Limited
www.netegral.co.uk | cgray at netegral.co.uk
0871 277 NTGL (6845)