[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

Hi,

>> I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't
>> want/need IPv6 PA space.
> 
> Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
> 
>  «In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6
>  allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment
>  (per ripe-589 section 7.1)»

Yep, seen that.

> If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and
> return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is
> *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.

Ack

> So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have
> any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try
> to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04
> were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6
> adoption» as before.

It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?

Cheers,
Sander