Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
> APNIC 's IPv4 portable assignment policy is also different with other RIRs(before and after final /8),
> take ARIN for example, I think the main reason they move to the current
> IPv6 portable assignement criterias is to keep it consistent with IPv4 portable
> assignment criterias, it's hard to explain to an organization that they are
> eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI.
>
While I cannot speak for the rest of the AC, let alone the entire ARIN community, I will
say that from my perspective, that is not correct. The current IPv6 PI policy in ARIN is
significantly more relaxed than our IPv4 PI policy. Our previous IPv6 PI policy was actually
much closer (and largely dependent upon) our IPv4 policy.
Much of the effort in developing the current IPv6 allocation and assignment policies in
the ARIN region focused on removing the ties between IPv6 policy and IPv4 policy.
> But APNIC don't have that situation, APNIC's IPv6 portable assignment criterias
> are consistent with IPv4 portable assignment criterias, and I don't see any issues raised
> about the IPv4 assignment policy.
But is that a good thing? Should they be? IPv6 is a very different ballgame from IPv4 and
applying IPv4 scarcity mentality to IPv6 policy is actually harmful IMHO.
> [Dean]:
> that the operational stability of the region is jeopardised, I will
> co-author the proposal with you to overturn this.
>
> [Terence]:
> I am afraid that's an one way street.
>
And here is the crux of the matter. Fear of scarcity because of long history with IPv4 being in
a state of scarcity is driving many of our IPv6 mistakes.
Owen