[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Hello Gert,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I cannot let this particular claim unanswered:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann <
> > richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <
> turchanyi.geza at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR
> level.
> > > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet
> > > > registry.
> > >
> > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything
> > > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy
> > > across all RIRs is desirable, though.
> >
> > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
>
>
> Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have
> the same number for it.  But if you look at how that came to be, it's more
> due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first
> place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so".
>

This divergence is a problem, I think.


> To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that
> suits their membership.  ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks"
> policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements",
> not everybody else had that), and so on.
>
> This is an argument or a counter argument?

>
> So please stop that sub-thread now.  The claim that address allocation
> rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can
> google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince
> themselves of that.  Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now,
> and only wasting bandwidth.
>
> (Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies
> identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal,
> and have to be discussed in a new context)
>

My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the
creation of a common policy harder.

Best,

Géza

>
> Gert Doering
>        -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120411/d10c0b73/attachment.html>