Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 proposals summary and call for discussion
>
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
>
>> I think prop-083 and prop-087 are in many ways talking about the same
>> thing. Our current view of network size is still influenced strongly by
>> an IPv4 of the world and we see a /32 as so huge that for most entities
>> they'll never need anything else. And to a large degree that's true.
>>
> They aren't actually.
>
> Prop 083 is about providers that have multiple locations that aren't
> connected by an interior backbone.
I'd prefer to use the term organisations rather than providers. I don't
think this proposal is limited to providers - they may be more likely to
use it.
>
> Prop 087 is about technologies like 6rd.
It seems I didn't make myself clear on this - when I said the same thing
I meant that that they're both talking about obtaining blocks larger
than some standard amount (/32) for particular network architecture or
technical reasons.
>
> Neither one of them has much to do with the /32 perception problem
> that prop 090 attempts to address.
I agree - I wasn't trying to link them other than that they're about IPv6.
>>
>> I'm less keen on the allocation criteria in Section 4.5. Sections 4.5.2
>> and 4.5.3 as written prevent any new organisation who isn't an ISP from
>> obtaining IPv6 address space for their own use.
>>
> That's certainly not the intent. The intent is not to change the end-user
> policy as it exists today and only to modify the LIR/ISP policy. This
> may be an unintended side effect of my limited familiarity with the
> APNIC policy environment.
>
> Can you suggest text that would rectify this issue?
Happy to try and happy to work with others who have ideas. I'm currently
on a train in England after a flight from LA and I'm going to think
about the rest of this when I'm slightly less jetlagged.
andy