[ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
Stephen Sprunk
stephen at sprunk.org
Fri Jan 26 14:03:19 EST 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> >> De: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> >> >> While most LIRs are usually reasonable, to me it seems important >> to include defined and somewhat rigorous criteria for the assignment >> of multiple /48s and a requirement for the LIR to record this >> justification for later auditing by the RIR when an LIR returns to >> the >> RIR for an additional allocation. > > I believe the the LIR is reasonable also, and that's why I will much > prefer to have them taking this decision. I'm not saying that the ARIN > hostmasters criteria is not reasonable, but if we don't have a > concrete > definition for "justified", and think is fair enough to keep trusting > the LIR. If we provide no guidance to the LIR on what "justifies" a larger assignment, how can we expect them to be reasonable? We haven't told them what we're trusting them to do! > Otherwise, agree with you, let's work on a possible definition for > "justified". Do you think we can find an agreement about that ? I'd like that, just like I'd like a real definition for "site" (i.e. the location vs. organization debate). I also think that the criteria for a larger assignment by an LIR should match the criteria for a larger direct assignment by ARIN; we don't have that either. However, it's unclear that there is actually a problem here to be solved. Absent a comment from the ARIN Staff that a non-trivial number of larger-than-/48 assingments have been referred to them, I propose that we not solve this "problem" until it actually exists and we have the data to show what exactly needs solving. Along those lines, I also object to the removal of the "interim" designation from the IPv6 policies. We don't know what the policies should be at this point, we still haven't fully defined what we think they should be, and we don't have enough experience to progress past an interim status. Hopefully that will change in a few years, but it's reality today. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list