Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Tim Jones <tim_jones2003@yahoo.com>]

Che-Hoo CHENG wrote: 


>At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I >may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment.  >However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length).  What can I >do now?

> 
 >This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy).

  
Does it?

Unless I am reading the wrong document, the proposal adds the following OR condition to the existing 200 assignments  requirement:

"OR;

    - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have
      a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other
      organizations within two years."

The way I read the above is the LIR must still make IPv6 assignments and/or 
sub-allocations. 

I guess another way of reading it is that the LIR must plan to make IPv4 
assignments, but what is that condition doing in an IPv6 document?

If this proposal is adopted, would anyone like to take a wager on how long it will
take before another proposal is put forward, claiming that the above discriminates 
in favour of existing ISPs to the detriment of new players in the market.

Is there really a problem here that we are fixing, or are we just arguing 
over semantics?

Cheers,
Tim.






 



      Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail