[ppml] 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes- InputRequested

> Bloat may be a bad word to use.  How about 'waste'?  That is more to
> the point.  ASN's that show up in routing for only one connection 
> can be argued as 'waste'.

Not at all!!!
ASNs are REQUIRED when a network is operated by an autonomous
organization regardless of whether or not they show up in
"routing" anywhere. The rough rule of thumb that determines
when an organization is autonomous is when they connect to
more than one network that has already been accepted as
an autonomous network. Beyond that, we don't need any more
definitions, especially not definitions of "waste" that represent
only one technical point of view.

The Internet numbering resources that we are stewarding, are
the joint property of the entire community of people who use the
Internet protocol (IP). Therefore, our policies have to find
a middle ground in the interests of all these parties. That's
what stewardship is, i.e. managing resources on behalf of 
a community containing different points of view.

> ASN's that are requested but not used 
> just to they could get IPV6 space would be a 'waste'.  For the sake 
> of not arguing over the use of a word, 'waste' would be more 
> appropriate and bloat should probably be dropped.

The word "waste" is not appropriate in any policy dealing with
IPv6 resources. It is appropriate in policies dealing with IPv4
resources but only until we know what happens as we approach the
event horizon. It is entirely possible that IPv4 demand will drop
and IPv4 address space will be returned in sufficient amounts for
us to not consider waste any more in IPv4 policies.

--Michael Dillon