[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)

> People sending comments to this list with the clear intention of 
> supporting the adoption of new policy should take their 
> responsibilities as stewards of the Internet's resources a little 
> more seriously in my opinion.

I think that we all take these responsibilities 
seriously, however we do not all have such narrow
interpretations of "resource stewardship" as you
seem to have.

> Folks need to stop focussing on getting rid of the 200 /48 
> assignments rule and start focussing on developing good, useful 
> policy for the region.

The fact is that having the number 200 in the existing
policy prevents that policy from being either good or
useful. The proposed change puts the policy on the path
towards being better and more useful. This is sufficient
reason to support the policy.

Not all ISPs have the same business model. But if an ISP
has an IPv4 network and has received an allocation from RIPE,
it is highly likely that their plans for IPv6 deployment will
also be reasonable within RIPE's understanding of the term.
After all, the organization is already a RIPE LIR.

I fully support proposal 2006-2

--Michael Dillon