Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
Izumi Okutani said the following on 4/2/08 11:46:
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this
proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route
Yup, that's it.
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of
criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating
this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
I think it should be there, please. Otherwise it simply reads that any
LIR with an existing IPv4 allocation can simply get an IPv6 allocation
to stock pile.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it
and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
Dropping 200 needs a replacement of some sort to make sure that LIRs are
actually intending to do something with their IPv6. I'm sure encouraging
stockpiling isn't the intention of the authors. ;-)