Randy Bush said the following on 25/1/08 23:37:
It seeks to ease current IPv6 initial allocation criteria by adding one condition which enables current LIRs with IPv4 allocations to receive IPv6 initial allocations without a plan for making 200 assignments.
A plan is just that, a plan. If ISPs feel unable to make a plan, what on earth are they doing in business. Business is all about making plans. Businesses that don't have plans don't last in business very long.
Some JPNIC members have pointed out that having a fixed number of planned assignments in this criteria makes it feel like an obligation that must be met.
Really? So we change Asia Pacific wide policy because a few JPNIC members have misunderstood the meaning of the word "plan"?
Therefore, it is becoming a barrier preventing LIRs from requesting IPv6 allocations.
Proof please? I'm not aware of anyone who has been denied IPv6 space because they couldn't put together a plan. As others have said, maybe the APNIC Secretariat can tell us how many have been rejected because of the "plan for 200 assignments" clause?
This proposal is a waste of time, IMHO, it solves nothing, it fixes nothing, and it will do nothing to help the deployment of IPv6. Unless APNIC can show that the majority of IPv6 applications were rejected because of the 200 limit, I oppose. We have better things to do with our time. This proposal has been here before, it has been roundly thrown out before; just because it reappears with different authors doesn't make it any better.
philip --