[ppml] alternative to 2005-1
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
> Also, why do you specify /19 for #5 under 18.104.22.168? 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.