[ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
> We have not received any input so far whether you support draft policy
> 2010-06. While silence will in general be interpreted as consensus, we
> prefer to have a good number of statements of support as that will make it
> unequivocally clear that consensus was indeed reached.

I oppose on grounds of paragraph 2 of "Arguments Opposing the Proposal".

The only one who needs the assignment size is RIPE NCC when evaluating
new allocation requests or in audit. At that time, it's easy for the LIR
to provide this info to NCC for HD ratio evaluation. Following the
spirit of data protection, we shouldn't put (in a mandatory manner) more
potentially sensitive data into public databases without a good
justification for the need to have that data public.

As a second reason, it allows folks running block lists to again start
blocking dynamic customer IP prefixes by automatically looking up the
assignment-size. Of course that makes no sense (as the /xy prefix will
belong to another customer next day), but as soon as those assignment-size
attributes will pop up, misguided folks _will_ start using them for
broken heuristics and cause colateral damage.

My opposition is solely about the assignment-size attribute being
mandatory.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0