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

> Oh I could do that. But then... What the hell are policies for 
> anyway! That's the scope of this thread really. Policies are, or 
> should be, a good thing. Otherwise they are just a bad joke. Is that
> what RIRs want? Fine.

Policies are only as good as the people who write
them. Since people are flawed, policies will also
be flawed. But if there is a good process for 
changing policies when flaws are noticed, then
we can muddle through the flaws.

I think RIPE does have a good process for changing
policies. However, the policy in effect today is
the one that we must follow, even though it has 
flaws. So instead of complaining about the flaws,
work with them. Write a plan to assign 200 /48s
within the next two years and get your /32. If there
is ever a new policy that allows you to go to RIPE
for a small PI block, then you can always hand
back the /32 and renumber. Since IPv6 policy allows
for all end-sites to use a /48, it should be very
easy to renumber. And since we are a long, long
way from a shortage of IPv6 addresses, if you need
to keep both old and new addresses active for a 
couple of years, there is no problem. IPv6 is happy
to use two different addresses for every interface.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. I think it is a good idea to have a formal
policy to give people PI blocks smaller than
a /32 prefix.


--Michael Dillon