Re: [sig-policy] IPv6 proposals summary and call for discussion
On Feb 9, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
> On 8/02/11 12:04 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> 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.
Fair point. Your choice of words better conveys my intent.
>>
>> 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.
>
Hmmm... I suppose on a very general level, yes. However I think they
seek to solve significantly different problems and that attempting to apply
one generic solution to both problems may be problematic or at least
suboptimal.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
Fair enough.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
OK... I look forward to your comments. Enjoy your travels.
Owen