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

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 21:10 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
> > Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to
> > get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users,
> > they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't
> > qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more?
> 
> The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more
> draconian than the "initial allocation" policy.
> 
> HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional
> alloc.

Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I
understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation"
policy. Why are you trying to change the  "_initial_ allocation" policy
then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that,
don't break this one. 

We're technology professionals for heaven's sake, not politicians. If
the scissors are broken, don't try to "fix" the hammer!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120215/fd9dbf76/attachment.sig>