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

Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> This is the most weaselly-worded clause of any RIR policy I've read.
> 
> Let's examine what possibilities there are:
> 
> plan vs requirement:
> 
>      1. Specify that a plan should exist to deploy x number of v6 sites
>         within y years: this is nonsense from the point of view that
>         anyone can create a plan to deploy anything, regardless of
>         whether this plan is in any grounded in reality.  This comes
>         back to the "do we lie to the RIR" issue.
>      2. Specify that an immediate requirement exist for x amount of v6
>         sites right now:  this is probably worse in the sense that the
>         RIR has no way to validate this type of claim and that it will
>         end up with more porky pies being told to the RIR.

Where an LIR has an existing deployed IPv4 infrastructure and is looking 
to provide IPv6 addresses for all or some of that network this option is 
not too unrealistic. There is normally a reasonable basis for working 
out what network elements an LIR needs to address. The problem with a 
requirement like this is that it makes it more difficult to evaluate the 
needs to new entrants to the market.

>      3. Specify that all LIRs who request a first ipv6 allocation are
>         given a /32.  No particular justification required, except that
>         the space be used for routing ipv6 traffic on the internet.

This one's the easiest to do, of course.

Regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC