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.

The trouble with *interim* policies is once they are in place they never
change or are very difficult to change.

>
> 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.