[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Gert,

Apologies I missed this bit in my first response:

> (Just to point out the obvious - from the early days of /35s I have been
> fighting for more liberal IPv6 allocation policies, but it still needs to
> be done with a solid technical understanding, and not with "I like large
> numbers, so get me a /15 please!" - this is the balance we need to find,
> or otherwise we'll find us faster than expected in the "oops, fp 001 is
> gone!" land)

I fully agree with this but would ask that you are careful not to inadvertently imply that all large requests are necessarily a result of technical ignorance and/or disregard for what is still a finite shared resource. Some will be I am sure but there will be many that are the result of considerable effort being put into identifying requirements and establishing a sensible and robust addressing strategy to satisfy them. I think we should be careful that we don't focus too much on constraining the former but end up having an even bigger negative impact on the latter.

As you say; it really is all about balance.

Mathew