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

[Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>]

Hi Izumi,

Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 18:59:
> I see that as a general definition, "plan" doesn't require any
> commitment and sounds too weak.

Right.

> It could be a cultural thing, but to me, "plan" is something that you
> are quite sure you will do it unless something unexpected happens.

No, that is definitely not what plan means. Sounds like a very 
unfortunate mistranslation to me. From my Collins English Dictionary:

plan (n):

1. a detailed scheme, method, etc, for attaining an objective

2. a proposed, usually tentative idea for doing something

There is nothing there that says that a plan is something that must be 
done unless something unexpected happens.

> removing this and replacing it with "must" sounds like you have to be
> 100% sure to do it and no room for uncertainties which are not intended.

Why apply for IPv6 address space if you aren't certain you are going to 
use it?

> To put it in short, my first preference is have the word "plan", but I
> agree to remove it if more people think that's preferable.

Using the word "plan" will result in what you said you wanted to avoid 
in the first place, the giving away of IPv6 addresses. This is why the 
original IPv6 proposal from a few years ago said "plan of 200" - the 
idea is to get people to think a little about doing something with IPv6, 
rather than just stock piling. Mind you, "plan" doesn't discourage stock 
piling, but ISPs had to at least think about it.

The new proposal basically replaces "plan of 200" to "plan of more than 
one customer", which, if you think about it, even I could do for my home 
network, right here in Brisbane. I could simply ask my two neighbours to 
be my customers - and I could justify an IPv4 /24 if prop-053 I 
mentioned earlier is approved, so would qualify for an IPv6 /32. Which 
I'm sure isn't the intention of your proposal. ;-)

philip
--