[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)

On 08/09/2014 04:08, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> It seems clear that we can't reach consensus on removing it completely, so
> I'm hoping for your support. Let's take baby steps so we can get at least
> some progress?

yep, agreed.

> The wording does not refer to route6 objects, only inet6num objects. The
> part about "globally routeable" refers to 2000::/3 so that people don't try
> to advance fc00::/7 or fec0::/10 address space (for example) as "theirs."

In that case it would probably be advisable to refer to IANA designated 
Global Unicast address space rather than "globally routable":

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space

> Our intention was to allow assignments by other LIRs or NIRs or whatever as
> well as RIRs.

It's not clear what you mean here.  Are you talking about provider 
independent direct assignments - which are exclusively assigned by NIRs and 
RIRs, or PA assignments - which are exclusively assigned by LIRs?  The 
proposal only makes sense for direct / PI assignments, not PA assignments.

Nick