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

Stefan,

On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:50 PM, Stefan Camilleri wrote:
>>> My customers have not yet requested it so how can I plan for any
>>> numbers.
>> It is called "marketing projections".
> I see. So my hunch was right. Just throw in a bunch of numbers and  
> keep on kidding ourselves

It is possible to come up with reasonable projections of the future.   
People do it every day in business plans.  Marketing projections are  
not inherently "kidding ourselves".  They are merely trying to take  
an estimation of the market and project it into the future.  I  
believe the "plan" requirement of existing IPv6 policies was intended  
to take into account the fact that deploying IPv6 is an unknown, both  
in terms of customer uptake and infrastructure requirements.

>> If, by some chance, you don't meet the plan you specify, you
>> can simply return the v6 space you were allocated, no?  If
>> you have allocated address space to customers, I would
>> imagine RIPE-NCC could be convinced to give you a bit of
>> extra time.  (Perhaps that's a good place for policy revision?)
> Exactly the point. THAT would be an intelligent policy so why all  
> the fuss about wanting to retain the current policy!

This would be a different change than what 2006-02 proposes.

> Yes. I was aware of that. Unfortunately IMHO, a bad start in the v6  
> allocation process.. But what's done is done.

And continues to be done.

>>>> I'm honestly curious: have you applied to RIPE for IPv6 address  
>>>> space
>>>> and been rejected?
>>> And yes, I did apply and yes I was rejected.
>> Fascinating.
> Truly awesome ... I'm doing my best to smile :-|

Given RIPE-NCC's IPv6 allocation statistics, I got the impression  
they didn't turn anyone down...
:-)

Rgds,
-drc