Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points

Hi Dave

At 10:24 am +0200 6/9/01, Dave Pratt wrote:
>I wrote:
>->> > 1. The idea of issuing a single/multiple /64 is totally unnecessary.
>
>This point was poorly expressed and could be mis-interpreted. As hinted at
>later in the same email, allocating a /48 makes much more sense to me if we
>want to save work for the NCC and the IXPs.

The current proposed allocations are being made with /48 boundaries 
so that we can make the change following discussion in Prague if that 
is the consensus about the interim policy.

We, as in the WG-Chairs and the NCC, have tried to make the interim 
policy extensible to allow it to be easily modified as we get more 
feedback on areas that were causing some people concern but that 
there was no consensus of what was the right way forward.

	f