[address-policy-wg] Comments on 2006-01 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

On 9 Jun 2006, at 15:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> I do not support the current policy proposal 2006-01 (v2.0) as it
> stands, although it could be fixed to make it more palatable.
>
> The primary problem is the implicit fixed lifetime of the address  
> space
> assignment for those organisations who require PI6 space but who  
> have no
> particular reason to eventually become a LIR. A LIR has significant
> requirements in terms of administration, and it does not seem  
> reasonable
> to me to encumber those organisations who have a simple requirement  
> for
> portable address space with the choice of either becoming a LIR or  
> being
> forced to renumber.  This makes the proposal unpalatable.
>
> I would be more inclined to support a scenario where the PI6 space
> assignment is permanent but contingent on a simpler contractual
> relationship with the RIR, and where that contractual relationship  
> does
> not force the assignee to become a LIR at some arbitrary point in the
> future.

Nick,

I think you're missing the opportunity to read 2006-01 as meaning
"PI6 space IS permanent UNTIL we discover and agree the better way,
at which point holders of PI6 space have 36 months to adopt the new
best practice".

I don't see an "implicit fixed lifetime" here, but a committed lifetime
to some point beyond our current horizon.

Is that SO unpalatable?

Beir bua!
/Niall