[ppml] alternative to 2005-1

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

> >Again, we are headed down a road that we have been on before. The last
> >2005-1 was defeated because of this point - the bar was set too high. I 
can
> >understand those who wish for no end-site multihoming. I can understand
> >those who wish for end-site multihoming similar to IPv4. However, I 
can't
> >understand going in circles, which is exactly what we are doing.
> 
> This is deadlock again.

I certainly do not consider a wide-ranging discussion
to be DEADLOCK or GOING IN CIRCLES. This is not a union
bargaining table. This is a discussion of possible ways
in which we can craft an IPv6 PI policy.

The discussion is not deadlocked at all. It has explored
a number of different possibilities and, as is inevitable,
sometimes the discussion goes down dead ends. This is
a good thing because it helps people understand which
possibilities need to be eliminated. This means that
we are making good progress.

I think it may help if the policy is written in such
a way that we separate the requirements for IPv4 users
from the requirements for non-IPv4 users. We seem to have
general consensus that most end users who have an IPv4
PI block should be able to get an IPv6 one. The wording
of that still needs some honing, but we do not need to
worry so much about a landrush situation.

On the other hand, if an end user has no IPv4 PI history,
the possibility of a landrush exists and the policy language
has to be tightened up a bit.

IMHO, a good policy would deal with each case separately.

--Michael Dillon