Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
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