[address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08

Hi all,

Preparing some text for another policy proposal, I just have the chance to
review again 2005-08 and I will like to raise my concerns.

To make it easier to follow, I'm looking at the comparison among existing
policy and the proposal at
http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s-2.html.

Section 1.1. I think is wrong to take out the reference to RFC3177. This is
the current recommendation and should not be ignored and keep as guidelines
and is helpful for ISPs to know about it, regardless they want to follow it
or not.

I also don't agree with the text "This policy is considered to be an interim
policy. It will be reviewed in the future, subject to greater experience in
the administration of IPv6.", but I don't agree either in the one proposed
by 2005-08. The complete paragraph should be simply removed (as I suggested
in a previous policy proposal and a revised one being submitted), because
otherwise, we should be fair and have something similar in all the policies.
All them are subject to future review if there is more (or different)
experience in the future, is the principle of the PDP process. Having such
text can be taken as a negative thing for new people considering deploying
IPv6.

2.7. If we suggest that the minimum assignment is /64 (as I understand in
other parts of the proposal), there is no point in measuring the utilization
in terms of /56. Either we measure the utilization in terms of /64, or we
suggest that the minimum assignment is /56. My view in any case is that it
should be kept as /48.

5.2.1. Same comment as for 2.7

5.4.1. I think is a mistake to change the existing text, but if we decide to
go for it, I will never suggest a minimum value of /64. End-users need to
have at least a prefix that allow to have several subnets. My view is still
that /48 is the right size, but definitively I will accept in the *worst*
case something such as /56, but never /64 should be suggested as a minimum
value. I think if we go into this direction, definitively there is a need to
clearly state that the end-users have the right to request extra size if
needed, without any additional justification, otherwise we are creating a
big barrier for deploying IPv6 and innovation, and this in turn is a barrier
for making profitable services. I know this is not our "business" but we are
pushing the creation of IPv6 with NAT at this way, and this is simply stupid
and in that case is better that we just stop considering IPv6 at all.

5.4.2. I've already proposed to delete this section in a previous proposal
and a revised one is being submitted.

Regards,
Jordi






**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.