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

[Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>]

Randy Bush said the following on 12/2/08 12:50:
> Continuing discussion
> ---------------------
>
> Here are some questions to help discussion continue:
>
>      - Do you support or oppose this proposal?

I started off opposing it, but the latest suggested wording proposed by 
Izumi-san would allow me to not oppose it. I don't support it, as I 
think the problem solved isn't an operational one, but a linguistic or 
maybe cultural one.

I've yet to see the entire revised text though - I think this would be 
very useful.

>      - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
>        so, tell the community about your situation.

Only problem it seems to solve is the mistranslation of the word "plan" 
from English into Japanese.

>      - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?

If prop-53 goes through (lowering minimum IPv4 allocation to /24), then 
basically anyone who gets a /24 will get an IPv6 /32.

Does the community really want this?

philip
--

>      - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>
>      - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
>        effective?
>
>
> Full details of the proposal can be found at:
>
>      http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html
>
> randy, for the policy sig {chair}
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy