Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocati
Thanks for explaining. I agree to remove the word "plan" if that's what
the common definition is.
I still feel "must announce" is quite a strong statement though.
I think the level of commitment required should be consistent with
other resources, so how about adding the word "demonstrate"?
It's used in defining criteria for all APNIC resources, i.e, IPv4
allocation, small mult-home assigment and ASN (see below) and hope this
would address your concern.
The proposed phrase would be:
-----
The LIR must also demonstrate to announce the allocation as a single
aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.
-----
izumi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPv4 allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
*demonstrate* a detailed plan for use of a /22 within a year; and
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
small multi-homed assignment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
is currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or *demonstrates*
a plan to multihome within one month; and
agrees to renumber out of previously assigned address space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if it:
:
:
An organisation will also be eligible if it can *demonstrate* that it
will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a
reasonably short time thereafter).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Smith wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
>
> Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 18:59:
>> I see that as a general definition, "plan" doesn't require any
>> commitment and sounds too weak.
>
> Right.
>
>> It could be a cultural thing, but to me, "plan" is something that you
>> are quite sure you will do it unless something unexpected happens.
>
> No, that is definitely not what plan means. Sounds like a very
> unfortunate mistranslation to me. From my Collins English Dictionary:
>
> plan (n):
>
> 1. a detailed scheme, method, etc, for attaining an objective
>
> 2. a proposed, usually tentative idea for doing something
>
> There is nothing there that says that a plan is something that must be
> done unless something unexpected happens.
>
>> removing this and replacing it with "must" sounds like you have to be
>> 100% sure to do it and no room for uncertainties which are not intended.
>
> Why apply for IPv6 address space if you aren't certain you are going to
> use it?
>
>> To put it in short, my first preference is have the word "plan", but I
>> agree to remove it if more people think that's preferable.
>
> Using the word "plan" will result in what you said you wanted to avoid
> in the first place, the giving away of IPv6 addresses. This is why the
> original IPv6 proposal from a few years ago said "plan of 200" - the
> idea is to get people to think a little about doing something with IPv6,
> rather than just stock piling. Mind you, "plan" doesn't discourage stock
> piling, but ISPs had to at least think about it.
>
> The new proposal basically replaces "plan of 200" to "plan of more than
> one customer", which, if you think about it, even I could do for my home
> network, right here in Brisbane. I could simply ask my two neighbours to
> be my customers - and I could justify an IPv4 /24 if prop-053 I
> mentioned earlier is approved, so would qualify for an IPv6 /32. Which
> I'm sure isn't the intention of your proposal. ;-)
>
> philip
> --