Hello Gert, <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net">gert@space.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hi, I cannot let this particular claim unanswered: <div class="im"> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < > <a href="mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com">richih.mailinglist@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <<a href="mailto:turchanyi.geza@gmail.com">turchanyi.geza@gmail.com</a>> > > wrote: > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. > > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > > > registry. > > > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything > > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy > > across all RIRs is desirable, though. > > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. </div>Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have the same number for it. �But if you look at how that came to be, it's more due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". </blockquote><div> This divergence is a problem, I think.� </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that suits their membership. �ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", not everybody else had that), and so on. </blockquote><div>This is an argument or a counter argument? </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> So please stop that sub-thread now. �The claim that address allocation rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince themselves of that. �Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now, and only wasting bandwidth. (Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal, and have to be discussed in a new context) </blockquote><div> My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the creation of a common policy harder. Best, G�za </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> 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: <a href="tel:%2B49%20%2889%29%2032356-444" value="+498932356444">+49 (89) 32356-444</a> � � � � � �USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 </blockquote></div>