Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)

Hi Nick,

address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 29/07/2006 09:43:17:

> > While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to 
it. 
> > Why 200 assignments?
> 
> Please see:
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html
> 
> The intention is to replace the completely arbitrary "200 /48's" with "a 

> reasonable number of /48's".  In fact, they mean the same thing, because 

>   any LIR can have a *plan* to assign 200 x /48s, regardless of whether 
> this plan is ever going to be implemented or not.

I agree with the change in wording in 2006-02, but I don't think they 
amount to the same thing. The 200 x /48s acts as a psychological barrier 
preventing many people from asking for IPv6, and none of us wants to lie 
to the hostmasters, do we?

> 
> But this is not particularly relevant to proposal 2005-08.
> 
True, and I felt I should point out that I didn't support that part of 
2005-08.

Ian