[address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)

On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote:
> but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask
> to LIR to garant routing.
>
> so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice
> for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.

from my other mail to this mailing list:

"- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the 
Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the 
address space for other entirely valid purposes."

Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which:

1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network
2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy
3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 
networks)

... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation?

Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in 
the world?

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

[*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means