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

David Conrad wrote:
> I'm confused.  According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the existing 
> policy doesn't require requesters to have 200 customers.  All that it 
> requires is that an LIR not be an end site, provide IPv6 connectivity, 
> and "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other 
> organisations within two years."
>
> Note it says "a plan".  An organization incapable of coming up with _a 
> plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant problems than not 
> having IPv6 space.
<climbs onto soapbox>

This is the most weaselly-worded clause of any RIR policy I've read.

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? Conversely, if we *don't* 
care about creating a real barrier, why have this charade at all?

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.

<off soapbox>

Niall, who apologises for the excessive markup