[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:47:04AM +0000, Krasimir Ganchev via address-policy-wg wrote:
> I couldn't agree more with Cynthia, policies are too strict and require justification which doesn't allow expansion over time and is just based on immediate needs.
> 
> All that especially in the era of exhausted IPv4 is practically unbelievable. 
> 
> No offense of course, just the reality.

This claim is just not true.

There might be some cases where expectations and grandeur plans do not
match reality, and in this cases it's reasonable that the NCC is strict
and will not hand out a /19 to someone who can fulfill all their expected
needs with a /32.

There are other cases where the NCC is asking lots of questions, and maybe
there are cases where the NCC is too strict.  So we need to talk about these
and see if it's "lack of reasonable documentation on the user side" or
"annoying interpretation on the NCC side".

OTOH, a /48 for an end-user site or a /29 for an ISP is pretty huge
(we have not even extended our /32 to a /29 as we assume that we will
never manage to fill the /32) - and documented reality shows that *if*
you need more, you can get it today.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair, and IPv6 user from day one, where the policies were
           *much* stricter than today
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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/20190227/211a2475/attachment.sig>