[ppml] alternative to 2005-1
On 02/09/06 at 5:21pm -0000, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> > Also, why do you specify /19 for #5 under 220.127.116.11? 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.
Ok. I think that by simply preventing anyone who doesn't qualify for IPv4
PI space from getting IPv6 PI space, we reduce the number of possible
allocations sufficiently. IOW, my biggest concern is
IPv6-PI-for-everyone, not simply giving IPv6 PI space to anyone who
qualifies for IPv4 PI space.
> I think this is a reasonable compromise to ensure that we adopt a IPv6
> PI policy sooner rather than later.
And if that's what it takes to get it passed, I'll support it, since we
can always make the policy more liberal later (whereas it's hard to make
it more conservative 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.
Ditto for /19's or whatever the consensus is...