[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

> > the problem with using ASNs is that when you think over the projected
> > lifetime of IPv6, there will be *lots* of ASNs.  Note that the 4-byte
> ASN
> > draft is entering the standards track in IETF.  Don't think that tying
> PI
> > to ASNs is anything more that passing the problem to the next generation
> > (if that long...  :-)
>
> A policy that says "if you qualify for an AS number then you
> also qualify for one IPv6 /32 allocation" does not run into
> any problems with 16-bit AS numbers. That is because you still
> have to qualify for the AS number before you can get the address
> allocation. Of course, after 16-bit AS numbers come in, some people
> may wish to make it easier to get AS numbers and we would probably
> want to change the address allocation policy at the same time.
>
> If a policy works for 2 years, that is good enough. RIRs can
> change policies in a few months if there is a need.

this would create another "early adopter" bonus, now in the IPv6 space.
some people believe that more fairness should be applied in this arena and
we should learn from the mistakes of IPv4.