[ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions

[David Kessens]

Thomas,

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:30:19AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> David Kessens <david at iprg.nokia.com> writes:
> 
> > This is a policy group and our goal for a policy should be to get ip
> > as widely deployed as possible with minimal cost and without breaking
> > the very technology that one wants to deploy.
> 
> Excuse me? Policy discussions are supposed to ignore any other
> constraints (like the technical feasibility of something)?

I don't think we are that far apart: the last part of my sentence
clearly says: 'without breaking the technology that one wants to
deploy'.

The area were we disagree seems to be that I don't have a problem
allocating addresses to organizations that don't allocate addresses to
third parties as long as the policy has appropriate breakers in place
that make sure that we cannot allocate more unique prefixes than the
routing system can take.

I prefer to put very simple limits in place like that we allow
allocation of X prefixes to such organizations and the policy will be
reviewed when we reach that limit. If things grow too fast, we might
need to tighten the policy, if things grow slower than expected there
is nothing we need to do. And obviously, those limits need to be
chosen very carefully to avoid problems in the future.

I am afraid that we are currently more restrictive than we really need
to be and that we indeed are impeding the adaptation of ipv6. As some
other people on the list have said, early adaption often comes from
the smaller businesses and individuals and the policy is currently not
very accomodative for such parties.

David K.
---