Hi
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
[Owen]
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
[Terence]
Sorry, I really should not make that comment about ARIN, but I have traced the discussion
about 'Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria' on the ' Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 7 October 2010'
I think it's the chair's language '...policies were becoming more consistent between assignments and allocations...'.
Of course that doesn't reflect all the AC and the community's view.
Any way, what I mean is if an organization is eligible for IPv4 PI but not IPv6 PI,
it's a good reason to change the 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.
[Owen]
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.
[Terence]
There is no concern about address scarcity here, the only concern is aggregation.
Which has higher priority than conservation in IPv6 compared to IPv4.
Regards
Terence