[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:01:12PM +0100, boggits wrote:
>> On 21 October 2011 11:44, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
>> >    www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
>>
>> Okay, I can see the logic, but please can we not do this :)
>>
>> I'm all for allowing a policy that says LIR can request a /29 rather
>> than a /32 and that deploying 6rd is a valid reason for allocating a
>> /29 as an initial block but can we do this by having the LIR send the
>> documentation in and having it reviewed for logic.
>
> The feedback we got at the last RIPE meeting was "please do not tie this
> to a specific transition technology, and go down the rathole of potentially
> having to revoke the allocation if 6rd is no longer in use".
>
> So the proposers have decided to go for the "minimum fuzz" thing - ask
> for it, get it.
>
> I'm not exactly sure how you're proposing to modify this?  "Special case
> for 6rd only"?

My personal opinion on 6RD is:  if it is to be treated as a special
case, it should be a special case, meaning it is a temporary
allocation (like all others, but with emphasis), valid only so long it
is used.  A 6RD allocation should be 100% 6RD and no other use of it
should be allowed, so that it can easily be returned once the 6RD
deployment is no longer in use.

That, or, roll native. ;)

Best,
Martin