On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 2:02 AM,
<tvest@eyeconomics.com> wrote:
What Randy means is that by explicitly defining the size of allocations under prop-062 as the minimum allocation permissible under current APNIC policies, it effectively externalizes that definition, thereby making the size an independently tunable factor. When (if) the APNIC community decides to embrace the idea of smaller minimum allocations in general, the new minimum will automatically apply to prop-062 allocations as well.
understood.
I ask the question because RIPE and ARIN have both explicitly linked significantly smaller minimum sizes to either all or part of the /8 block. In both cases they've done this where they've added the constraint that the address allocation is for IPv6 transition purposes.
If we adopt this new proposal which extends the IPv6 transition requirements from the originally proposed /10 to the whole of the final /8 and we don't consider the allocation size we could end up with a policy that's radically different from the ARIN and RIPE policies.
I don't think that's a problem if we make a conscious choice in that way but I don't think it's good that we end up there by accident or omission.
I think it would be useful for us to at least note in this proposal that we'd expect the minimum allocation size to be considerably smaller for IPv transition allocations than the current value.
My preference is to adopt something like the ARIN policy with a /10 set aside for IPv6 transition work with the remaining 3 /10s used for business as usual or other policy initiatives we might agree to in future.
andy