Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points

Dave,

Dave Pratt wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I cannot agree with the proposed policy as it stands since:
> 
> 1. The idea of issuing a single/multiple /64 is totally unnecessary.
> 2. As stated many times by many, the IXP need globally routed space, which
> they cannot get under present normal sTLA allocation rules.
> 
> Allocate a /48 (or larger), and remove the comments about not being "globally
> routable" and I would be happy.

While I understand you don`t agree with the policy as its stands, it is
an *interim* proposal to facilitate v6 take-up within the ixp
community.

No doubt if we shift the policy to fit your wishes, someone else will
disagree. In the interests of pragmatic progression, lets debate these
issues from the perspective of a working model and get this policy
approved.

Regards, Steve.