[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal

Yes, I can see your point, and agree with it.

regards,

     Geoff


At 08:12 PM 5/10/2005, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator wrote:
>
> > PDP Number: 2005-08
> > Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy
>
>Proposing a bit of word-smithing:
>
>" Rationale:
>[ ... ]
>As a consequence of that, LIRs will need far more address space, depleting 
>the available
>pool of addresses at an accelerated rate and reducing the lifetime of the 
>IPv6 protocol."
>
>Proposed replacement text:
>As a consequence of that, LIRs and ISPs will distribute (to End Sites) 
>IPv6 addresses in
>blocks much greater than presumably necessary for an average end site - 
>thus depleting the
>pool of unallocated or unassigned IPv6 addresses at an accelerated speed.
>
>Why?
>I have a particular problem with the assertion that the "lifetime" of the 
>protocol is
>reduced! The protocol itself will remain valid anyway, we would just have 
>to modify the
>procedures for distributing the addresses.
>
>And the inclusion of "unallocated or unassigned" IPv6 addresses: because 
>formally the pool
>of available addresses is of fixed size.
>
>
>Thanks for consideration!
>Wilfried.