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

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:05:52 +0200, "Marc van Selm"
<marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int> said:
[snip]
> I do not like the requirement that the block must be returned after 3
> years. 
> That is against the main reason why PI is useful. Freedom of renumbering 
> everytime one needs to change ISP. When one needs to start over after 3
> years 
> one might as wel use PA because one needs to renumber once in a while
> anyway. 

We're not talking 3 years from the assignment is made, but 3 years from
the time when there is consensus that PI in the traditional sense is no
longer necessary. So, if say in 2012 the community decides that some
available multi-homing solution works, scales etc for all uses, you have
to migrate by 2015. The availability of tools to handle and/or
eliminate any re-numbering issues would be an important criteria for
such a decision.

[I support PI if I have my arms twisted to fully implement v6 *now*, but
the fundamental question is whether v6 without a scalable routing
architecture is ready for use.]


//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/