Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Marcelo,...

marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> [...]
> > >
> > > Being overly restrictive in the IPv6 allocation policy is a bad signal -
> > > there is enough address space, and the global routing table will easily
> > > cope with 2000 prefixes per region - we should try to make people
> > > *accept* IPv6, not hinder its deployment based on some unreasonable
> > > fears.
> >
> > Gert is correct. Indeed the LACNIC draft contains one very disturbing
> > phrase in this respect:
> >
> > >> LACNIC shall encourage the use of private resources (whenever
> > possible),
> > >> both for IPv4 RFC 1918 and IPv6 addresses as well as for ASN
> > (64512-65535).
> >
> > This isn't the place for a polemic about RFC 1918 or ASNs. But we should
> > certainly not encourage the use of "private resources" for IPv6 addresses.
> > Right now there are no private resources (site locals are being
> > deprecated,
> > and their replacement is not yet agreed), and we need to do everything
> > to discourage barriers in IPv6. I suggest deleting the reference to IPv6
> > in this sentence.
> >
> 
> Agreed, but i think you are talking about the exprimental allocation policy
> proposal and not about the IPv6 policy proposal, right?.

...I just clicked on the link supplied... but you're correct. However,
with site locals being deprecated, I think it is wrong to encourage
people to use them even for experiments.

   Brian

> Regards, marcelo
> 
> > Regards
> >    Brian
> >
> > P.S. I've deleted the CC to the ICANN Board. I suppose it was put there
> > by "Jeff Williams." Whoever plays "Jeff Williams" on the Internet seems
> > to enjoy cross posting to irrelevant lists.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM