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

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:54:42PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > I don???t think reaching consensus in the PI/PA change will be so easy
> > in the ???near future??? (considering that it may require a long
> > implementation time), and a middle way proposal looks feasible to
> > me.
> 
> but it's not a middle way: it's removing the block on sub-assigning to
> other parties, which is the thing that distinguishes PI from PA.

Which is one of the things.  Other things are "how big will that bag
of numbers be" and "what costs are attached to it".

Especially the "how big will that bag of numbers be" will certainly be
something we'll have to discuss next, shall we decide to open up PI
for "more liberate use" (like, will "I want to assing a million /64
to DSL users" be a sufficient reason to get "larger than a /48"?).

Consequences to all we do...

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171108/281c8a01/attachment.sig>