[address-policy-wg] Re: Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Hi,

I'm not sure I agree with the proposed policy.

> I've done a presentation on RIPE62 on the proposal for those not familiar
> with 2011-02 and you can find the PPT here:
> http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/171-2011-02_ripe62.ppt  

I find the justification given in "where does it come from" on
slide 7 to be a bit weak.

Specifically, as noted elsewhere in the slide deck, it's not just
the LIR fee to get IPv6 PA space which acts as a pushback.  So
therefore I think the conclusion which says that the community
does not care or does not need to worry about the IPv6 DFZ size,
or that there are no technical issues, to be weakly founded.

So by removing the requirement for multi-homing to get IPv6 PI
space yet one more part of the dike to stem the flood into the
DFZ is whittled away.  Who is willing to predict whether IPv6 PI
after this policy is passed is going to be the modern-day
equivalent of the old "swamp" in the 192.0.0.0/8 space, where
route aggregation is impossible and ownership of address blocks
is scattered far and wide.


Underlying, and unstated seems to be an assumption that "everyone
has a birthgiven right to a non-changing IPv6 address when one
changes provider".  Is that really a given?


Best regards,

- Håvard