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

On 11/09/2014 05:59, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> The definition we had written is as follows:
>
> [O]rganisations are eligible to receive an allocation from the final /8 if
> they have an inet6num object registered in the RIPE Database or any of the
> other RIR databases mirrored by the RIPE NCC.
>
> This will validate the address space on both the macro and the micro level.
> I think this is a more convenient definition than referring to the IANA
> database. Do you disagree?

You still haven't made it clear what you're trying to do here.

- if you're suggesting that an organisation with a PA assignment (or 
equivalent) of /128 from some random LIR-type organisation anywhere in the 
world should be eligible for a last-/8-allocation, then this is basically 
meaningless and you would be better off removing the rule completely.  The 
reason for this is that the policy is intended to encourage LIRs to deploy 
IPv6 for the end-users and provider-associated address space is pretty 
meaningless for LIRs in this regard.  It is not a good idea to create 
policy which can be satisfied by tick-box compliance.

- alternatively, if it's your intention that only provider independent / 
allocation style address space be used for this policy, you need to state 
that.  From my understanding of the original intention of the policy, this 
would be most appropriate in this situation.

 From the point of view of the policy development process, you need to make 
it clear because there's an important semantic difference here which you're 
glossing over.

Once you've made it clear, only then will it be possible to have a 
meaningful discussion about the most appropriate wording for inet6num vs 
"Global Unicast".

> The above definition is in the summary of the proposal instead of the
> proposed policy text change. It should make it into the supporting notes
> of the policy. We wrote it like this, because we think that this is the
> way it's usually done. The policy text is more generic and the
> supporting notes go into the nitty gritty detail.

The policy proposal proposes to change a single line in the policy.  The 
supporting notes are arguments to help it through the working group, but 
they are not part of the policy.

Nick