Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
Philip Smith wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
> 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
>> annoucements/service plan?
> 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.
sure. point taken.
>> 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. ;-)
I couldn't agree more.
I've just sent a modified criteria to the list - I hope it looks more
reasonable now. :-)