[address-policy-wg] late comments on 2009-06

Hi Rob, Ruediger,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:03:52PM +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
> were doing was allowing more people to use IPv6.  Are you suggesting the
> potential deaggregators can already get multiple prefixes per LIR?  

They can't.  This is why multiple people have brought up this issue
in the APWG, originally asking for "special rules under which a second
PA block could be assigned" - which found no consensus, so we changed
the angle of attacking this.

> If that is the case, then perhaps we do not need to relax the aggregation
> requirement.

We do - I think this was a misunderstanding between Ruediger and you.

Ruediger is worried that the removal of the existing requirements might
lead to misinterpretation on the side of the NCC IPRAs, who could then
(theoretically) actually *suggest* large-scale deaggregation to new IPv6 
applicants.  Which would, of course, be harmful, and not the aim of this
policy change.

So we definitely need to go forward with the routing WG document on IPv6 
announcement best practices :-) - which could then be used by the IPRAs
as "operator community" reference.

Confusion cleared up?

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  141055

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279