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

>> flawed. If the net effect of your proposal would be that more than  
>> 95% of members would qualify for a /32 allocation it is probably  
>> simpler to just make the qualifying criterion being a RIPE NCC member.
> 
> Well.  Let's do a straw poll...
> 
>  "who is in favour of doing so?"

Me. I've expressed this opinion lots of times, although Leo's justification 
for it is characteristically succinct.

Messing around with restrictive policies which are just going to end up 
making LIRs lie about their requirements is both silly and counter- 
productive.  If a LIR applies for IPv6 address space, they are presumably 
going to use it.  If they don't want it, they are not going to apply for 
it.  What's the big issue here?

I would like to see something along the lines of:

"A LIR is automatically entitled to an initial IPv6 /32 allocation.  If the 
LIR requires a larger initial allocation or subsequently requires further 
allocations, justification must be provided."

Everyone's been tying themselves up in knots about this policy proposal 
since May last year, and we've really got no-where since Jordi's original 
document.

Meanwhile, LIRs are still lying, and RIPE is still turning a blind eye to this.


Nick

-- 
Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie