[ppml] alternative to 2005-1

[Andrew Dul]

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>

  
>  Also, why do you specify /19 for #5 under 6.5.8.1?  Shouldn't someone with
>  a IPv4 PI /22 be able to get an IPv6 /48?
>  

It is just a line in the sand.  

I personally believe that a /22 is too small, however there are those who will think that an org with a /22 should be able to obtain a IPv6 PI address space.  By increasing the IPv4 network requirement we reduce the number of possible allocations.  I think this is a reasonable compromise to ensure that we adopt a IPv6 PI policy sooner rather than later.  

Having said that if the consensus of the community is to allow an org with a /22 to obtain a IPv6 PI allocation, I also support that.

Andrew