[address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

> "we" really don't care about that, do we? The "real" issue 
> imho is to make
> sure that just one prefix makes it to the core/DFZ/<your 
> favourite term here>.

...to make sure that no more than one prefix makes it to
the core routing tables. If the organization heavily 
deaggregates these prefixes on an extranet, then this is
fine as long as the owner of the extranet has no problem
with it.

The real issue is that the Internet has no owner and
therefore it is not clear who should manage routing 
guidelines/recommendations. Since this is a grey area
for the RIRs, might I suggest that all issues of
routing be removed from IPv4, IPv6 and ASN policies
in order to collect them together in a single 
"Routing Recommendations" document? This can then
contain the necessary prose to clarify the differences
between the Internet and other internetworks. That way
we no longer have to worry about ambiguous references
to "advertising" routes in the policies.

> And as has been pointed out already, from the point of view 
> of an RIR this is
> (should be?) more like a (strong) recommendation than a 
> formal *address policy*
> aspect. If this recommendation is violated, the RIR doesn't 
> have appropriate
> means to sanction anyway...

All the more reason to collect this material in a 
document separate from the policies themselves.

--Michael Dillon