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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Fully agree, and I’ve been working around that idea for about a year
> already … I’ve something in the kitchen, but still not mature
> enought.
> 
> I’m waiting for NCC budget figures to be able to make a proposal that
> is sustainable in the long term. I know “money” is not related to
> policies, but in this case, even if is only rational behind the
> proposal text, I think it is a must.
> 
> Nevertheless, my opinion is that that change may take, as you said, a
> longer period of discussion, and I will like to make sure, meanwhile,
> cases such as Max one, aren’t “in hold” for deploying IPv6.

if you're planning to change this universally some time in the future,
it would be simpler and easier to make a step change (i.e. Max's
suggestions) in the ipv6 assignment policy now rather than making a
fundamental change there first and catching up with other bits of policy
later on.

Nick