Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
- To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
- From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:20:19 +1000
- Authentication-results: syd-dkim-1; header.Fromfirstname.lastname@example.org; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/syddkim1002 verified; );
- Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <47A66E87.6020304 at nic dot ad dot jp>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Organization: Cisco Systems
- References: <F1AD33BD-561B-4F75-A17F-9A9CAAF0C481@apnic.net> <47A14EC8.email@example.com> <47A19214.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47A24F1B.email@example.com> <47A2E097.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47A6543D.email@example.com> <47A66E87.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (Macintosh/20071031)
Hi Izumi, Izumi Okutani said the following on 4/2/08 11:46:
I understand your concern now. If I read it correctly, you feel this proposal is too relaxed as it doesn't require any commitment for route annoucements/service plan?
Yup, that's it.
The reason why we didn't mention it was because it is already a part of criteria c), but I personally don't have a problem about incorporating this part into d) as part of two years's commitment.
I think it should be there, please. Otherwise it simply reads that any LIR with an existing IPv4 allocation can simply get an IPv6 allocation to stock pile.
Let me discuss it with my co-author Toshi to see how we can revise it and get back to the list again. Your input was really helpful. Thanks!
Dropping 200 needs a replacement of some sort to make sure that LIRs are actually intending to do something with their IPv6. I'm sure encouraging stockpiling isn't the intention of the authors. ;-)