[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:03:24 +0000, "Sascha Luck"
<ripe-lst at eirconnect.net> said:
> And that, Ladies & Gentlemen, is exactly the point. No ISP/Telco/Hoster 
> can  be trusted. Hence, the requirement for multihoming in v4 today, 
> and in v6 tomorrow. No amount of policy fiddling and idle discussion 
> can change that fact.

[thought my last post had sarcasm written all over it ... nevermind]

I don't disagree there's a need for (business requirements) multihoming.
Allocation policies however have to reflect reality. There's a
reason why we don't accept v4 micro-PI-allocations today (which is what
this thread diverted to). Despite endless arguments we've managed 
to define a balanced policy that works for ipv4 (no need to 
start those arguments again). 

To those who want ipv6 deployed *now*; What is their relation to the
term "business requirements"? Do they understand the difference
between fiction and reality? Shim6&friends belong to the future, 
as does routing technology able to cope with a fragmented v6 
addresspace. The only alternative *today* is to define a policy
that has a fair balance between what's practically doable (DFZ size)
and connectivity needs.

Is it the numbers that are confusing policy-makers? With current
v4 policies it's fairly easy to justify the need for a certain
size address-block, and equally easy to check utilisation of
allocated block. Obliously, with V6 nobody is going to 
fill a /[whatever] and "utilisation" becomes an irrelevant term.
Could it be an alternative to require that V6 PI-holders document
their use of the allocated block, and apply some form of
hostcount that reflect the current V4 policy to justify their
V6 allocation.


//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  heldal at eml.cc