[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-5: IPv6 HD ratio

[Edward Lewis]

At 15:42 +0700 9/13/05, Randy Bush wrote:
>>  Consensus did not appear to be reached on the end-site subnet
>>  size of the APNIC policy (ARIN policy proposal 2005-8).
>
>the basis for this rejection was seeing that /56, /48/, ... are
>classful addresses all over again.  and enough folk who had lived
>through the classful disaster last time happened to be in the room.

Some other comments made by attendees:

NIRs and LIRs in the APNIC region have already built their address 
management software around the /48 size, to them seeing a different 
size in a policy proposal would be a real pain.  Even if the space 
they have already doled out was "grand-fathered" to be /48's and not 
/56's, they would still incur a cost of some retooling.

I.e., in the APNIC region, IPv6 is already past "early adopter" status.

Having heard discussions of this proposal at ARIN, RIPE and APNIC, I 
came up with a suggestion to eliminate any operational recommendation 
from the proposal as this always seems to engender a rat hole 
argument over how to use IPv6.  I.e., drop the "/48 vs. /56" 
discussion from the policy.

Instead, the policy ought to me more clearly focused on "measurement 
of address use" for the sake of deciding when more space is to be 
granted.  This is partly a wording trick to clarify the intent of the 
policy and to keep discussion from rat holing.    But this is more 
than just a trick - it's also trying to keep RIR policies in the 
realm where "they belong," i.e., address management and not 
operational directives.  (The HD ratio change is well within the 
bailiwick of address allocation management.)

 From http://www.apnic.net/meetings/20/docs/transcripts/policy-sig.txt:

"GEOFF HUSTON:

Usage rather than recommended deployment is what you're saying, thank
you."

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.