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

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:04:45PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> > > 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.

Evidence so far doesn't seem to back that, and I have not seen anyone
else stand up recently and voice their wish for a unified global IPv6 
assignment and allocation policy.  Regions are different, and this is
why we *have* 5 regional IRs, to take that into account.


> > 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?

It is to show that you should make up your mind.  Regarding IPv6 PI, you 
were *opposing* a proposal that made the polices more comparable on a global
basis.  Now what, do you want equal policies, or not?


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

Creation of a common policy is not a particular goal of this working group, 
unless someone brings up a policy proposal explicitely tagged as "global
policy proposal" (which we need as soon as it affects ICANN to RIR 
distribution).  

There will always be cases where one region introduces a change that will
be picked up by other regions - or not, if that change is not suitable
for other regions.  So policy might re-synch itself, or might not.

So while we listen to you, that particular argument in itself is no reason 
to stop or change 2011-04.  We do regional policy.

(And yes, I'm aware that there is only one global routing table.  2011-04 
will not introduce extra prefixes, and one /29 will take exactly as much 
TCAM space as one /32).

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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120411/381b6b42/attachment.sig>