[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-050 vs prop-067 (part two)
< sig co-chair hat = off >
prop-050 states:
Transfer fees:
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
because the EC sets fees, not the address policy wg.
It seems to me that this is where the fundamental difference between the
two proposals lies
maybe. i have a slightly different point of view. as pfs seems to be
off somewhere, how unusual, i am speaking for myself, not for both authors.
to me, the critical differences are as follows:
o the community expressed concern about routing table size.
prop-067 addresses that directly by following current
allocation size policy and not allowing slicing stuff down to
/24s. and current allocation size policy is where such changes
should be addressed.
o the community asked that use of the space be justified.
prop-067 explicitly calls that out.
o folk kept asking about inter-region transfer. prop-067 allows
it and specifically makes sure it follows apnic and the other
rir's policies.
randy
