On 3/1/2012 1:07 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I strongly supported version 002 of this proposal.
I agree with point (d) and I would support with a proposal which contained it.
I disagree with point (e) as it stands and I would not support with
any policy which contained a similar clause.
I believe that placing a sunset clause on this policy sets a bad
precedent. As mentioned by the APNIC secretariat, there has been no
example of this being done on any previous proposal.
As mentioned by David during the meeting, there is nothing to stop any
other proposal being raised which would repeal prop-101 if a situation
arose.
As such I do not support version 003 of prop-101.
I agree with Dean. I was quite comfortable with v002 of prop-101.
I'm indifferent about the reporting requirement (d), but I absolutely
think that the sunset clause is inappropriate. If we feel in the future
[and what if that future is in one year, rather than two?] that the
policy is not working out, we propose a new policy and replace it.
I would point out that anyone today who wishes to obtain a PI IPv6
prefix can simply dual home via a tunnel - so this policy is hardly
likely to substantially increase the size of the IPv6 RIB given that
anyone can obtain a prefix anyway. This just formalizes and simplifies
that process.
For the operators who are concerned by this policy I'd really like to
understand what those concerns are in more detail.
regards,
aj
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy