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

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:43:10PM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
> Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding,

Thanks for your kind words.

> From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the
> "_additional_ allocation" policy.

Correct.

> Why are you trying to change the  "_initial_ allocation" policy
> then?

I'm not - as without also changing the additional allocation policy,
it's meaningless for anyone in danger of "needing more" in the future.
Especially as I'm told that the initial allocation request is NOT
evaluated with "a long term perspective", but just 2-3 years. I refrain
to speculate about the background of that number.

So you can quite liberally (and even more so after 2011-04 passes) get
an allocation of size X for 2-3 years, and after that you can completely
revamp your addressing scheme and renumber everything because you
suddenly can't get more space with exactly the same plan with which you
got your initial allocation. How broken is THAT please?

What a mess. And IPv6 was supposed to make things easier. Especially
regarding internal addressing hierarchy (for that you need BITS in your
prefix!). But we're effectively left with "have 36.86% of your alloc in
use" (IPv6 HD-Ratio requirement for additional alloc >/32) instead of
the IPv4 80%. Most excellent.

HD-Ratio 0.94 way over the top.

> If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that,
> don't break this one. 

I'm not breaking anything, I'm just pointing out that the initial and
additional allocation policies already differ significantly and that
this makes no sense to me. 2011-04 just makes that discrepancy even
worse.

Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0