[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Are there people here that say that a small change of the current  
> policy is
> a problem? The change would be that the list I did mention earlier  
> is a
> valid reason to get a IPv6 PI range.
>
> If no one is saying that it is a problem at this moment to create a  
> formal
> proposal to change it (or a new proposal based on the current one) I  
> would
> like to create it the coming week. The target of the change will be  
> to make
> it a little bit easier to get IPv6 PI for organizations, so more
> organizations could start offering their services on IPv6 (PA isn't  
> enough
> for many organizations if they are not the LIR).
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Mark Scholten


What change are you thinking of ? If it goes in the direction to allow  
sub-assingment (in any way shape or form) from within a PI block I  
wouldn't support it.

And to answer your question, I guess that there will always be some  
objection to change...it's in people's nature.

MarcoH