[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1

[Scott Leibrand]

On 02/13/06 at 3:18pm -0000, Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> wrote:

> scott wrote me an open letter:
>
> # The latest revision of 2005-1 only gives out IPv6 PI space to orgs who
> # qualify for IPv4 PI space.  It no longer gives it to anyone who's
> # multihomed with IPv6.  Do you still think it needs a sunset clause?
>
> sadly, yes i do.  there has been reasonable debate here as to the long term
> viability of a "let ipv6 have an ipv4-like swamp" strategy.  until we know
> either that (a) that won't happen, or (b) it's no big deal, any PI policy
> for ipv6 really should be experimental/limited.  my own belief is that we
> will see a small number of initial allocations, then nothing for a long
> time

So if we assume your belief may prove correct, it would seem that what we
need is to limit the number of PI allocations that can be made under the
policy, rather than limiting the lifetime of the policy.  If we set such a
limit high enough, I wouldn't object to that.  What number would you
propose?

> and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the complaints
> about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed.  but, let's find
> out!

Yes, let's.  I really think we should pass some sort of IPv6 PI policy at
Montreal.  If limiting the number of PI allocations allowed under the
policy makes that possible by making the policy more palatable to a wider
audience, I'm all for it.  I just want to make sure that we don't set the
limit too low.

-Scott