[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Peter Koch wrote:

> i do not believe this reflects the full wisdom and history of the PDP. 
> There is a difference between opening the flood gates and then starting 
> another proposal to get them closed and opening the flood gates and 
> determining in advance that they be closed once the dam reservoir is 
> half full (or ~ empty).  Both are possible under the PDP and i'd suggest 
> that 2009-03 might well serve as a precedent for such a "dynamic" 
> policy.

I fear DFZ bloat. I have a hard time imagining that the policy group would 
change the PI policy even if there were an PI rate explosion, because of 
vested interest in keeping the policy in place from a large volume of 
people.

I would feel a lot more ease at mind if there were some kind of provision 
in it that would actually put a cap on number of PI blocks and force an 
mandatory re-consideration (or review or what not) of the policy (even 
though this might pass anyhow because of the beforementioned vested 
interests). This can be put quite high, let's say 100k in 10 years for the 
RIPE region (I haven't put too much thought into the actual number).

This would curb my doubts about it and I would fully support it, and the 
people saying there won't be a PI rate explosion shouldn't have much 
problem with it either, because if they're right, this provision would 
never come into effect.

I also have no problem passing the current policy so we can change IPv6 PI 
rules, and discuss the actual cap number during the next coming months.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se