[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Niall,

On Jun 8, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Niall Murphy wrote:
> This is the most weaselly-worded clause of any RIR policy I've read.

No argument, although I'm sure I can find more weaselly-worded  
clauses if I looked :-).

> If we *actually* cared about creating a /real/ barrier to DFZ  
> membership - for aggregation or for any other reason - why on earth  
> would we require a *plan* rather than actual numbers?

Personal opinion: appeasement of the more vocal and insistent in the  
IPv6 community who felt the RIRs were blocking deployment of IPv6.   
Perhaps not surprisingly, this appeasement attempt apparently failed  
to either significantly increase deployment of IPv6 or quiet those  
vocal and insistent members of the IPv6 community.  I suspect the  
latter would only be happy with FCFS, however I also suspect the  
former will only be addressed when IPv6 is finished.

> As it stands, the 'plan' clause is a sufficient loophole that it  
> does not serve well either purpose of enforcing aggregation, or  
> *not* enforcing aggregation. It is far from being a clear and  
> credible policy, and it should be taken out and shot.

You have it within your power to propose such a policy revision...

Rgds,
-drc