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

On 10/24/11 11:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> why are we screwing around?  let's go straight to a /16 or at least a
>>> /20.
>> it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :)
>
> well, they could convert to a /16.  but they would only be allowed to
> change their whois data on odd numbered wednesdays while standing on
> their left foot

There were suggestions to go directly to /24 (as then you can easily 
deploy 6RD, give out /56 and have no incentive to go to native v6), but 
this did not seem a good idea to many of people we discussed with about 
this matter.

When mentioning this to you, you had no preferences and/or objections :)

I know it's politics and policy, but we just exposed the problem from 
real operations world towards policy-making community and community 
decided we need to deal with this issue. We are also well aware, that 
"6rd is wrong way of doing right thing (or even vice-versa)", but it out 
there and happening.

whois data and wednesdays, well, this is implementation issue, not 
policy so we can fix that later on :) :) :)

cheers, Jan