[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

What I’m not supporting is the *current* text (this version, as I understand we are discussing this version).

I feel that the current version is solving partially Max case, but even in his case, if he decides to provide /64 for each hot-spot customer, this proposal will not work.

I think Jan comments (in the meeting, hopefully he can repeat here) are very relevant, and I’ve a draft policy proposal in that direction, I’m waiting for my co-author review to submit it.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
Responder a: <gert at space.net>
Fecha: miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2017, 10:26
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    Hi,
    
    On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:12:59AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
    > Sorry, I thought that you also consider the opinions in the meeting, so just repeating myself, I???m against this proposal.
    
    I find my "before we enter discussion" slide on this quite unambiguous.
    
    The discussion at the meeting is relevant to get a feel for the room, 
    and help the proposer to get guidance in which direction the proposal
    should be developed.  For the sake of openness and transparency, the 
    *list* is what is relevant.
    
    
    But besides that, your statement is not helping.  You have voiced support
    at the May meeting for the general proposal, and now oppose "the proposal",
    without further qualifying.  So what, do you support loosening up the
    IPv6 PI policy, and just do not agree with the v2.0 wording, or do you
    generally oppose any move into that direction?
    
    > I know, a policy can probably never be perfect at once, but I
    > will prefer, in this case, having a better solution than an
    > intermediate step to a better one, as otherwise we are complicating
    > the interpretation of many other aspects in the overall IPv6 policy.
    
    There are no perfect policies.  There are workable compromises that
    iteratively get adjusted to changed community requirements.
    
    The IPv6 PI policy is a good example: it's a compromise, because we
    did not know 10+ years ago what a "perfect!" policy would have looked
    like (and 10+ years ago, what people assumed would be needed is 
    different from the landscape today)
    
    Gert Doering
            -- APWG chair
    -- 
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
    
    SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.