[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On 8/4/13 09:59 , bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 	Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational need
> 	for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space....  So the rules for v6
> 	allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation policies.

I disagree, /64 is easily justified by how the protocols are defined, so 
is a /56 and probably a /48 for a business customer.  You may want to 
argue if the protocols should have been defined to use a whole /64 for a 
single Ethernet.  But that is not an RIR policy question, that is an 
IETF protocol question.  The RIR's have to work with the protocols as 
the IETF defines them.  I'm not saying you are necessary wrong, just 
that this isn't the forum.

> 	The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, when
> 	there was -no- other option.

Again I disagree, if you wanted a Class A or B you needed to justify the 
request, it was relatively easy by comparison for sure.  And if you 
wanted more you had to explain what you did with the ones you had.  But 
justification didn't just come in with conservation or scarcity, it 
always been there, what has changed is the standards for the 
justification.

I'm not stuck on the current standards for justification, but 
eliminating both "operational need" and any concept of "fairness" to 
replace it is an issue for me.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================