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

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> 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.


	perhaps.  but wasted space is wasted space.


> >	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.

	see previous post.  then, verification was the Buffet test...
	simply by making the request was verification of need.  today,
	the verification process boarders on harrassment and restraint
	of trade.  I think either extream is fraught with peril.

> 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.

	Good thing there is the forum for public dialog. :)

/bill