[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines - version 3

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:34:00PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> And anyhow, it could be years before there is any significant volume of
> requests for second allocations. Why do we need to waste time on this
> problem now? For this reason, I am opposed to this policy. Whether
> current policy is right or wrong is irrelevant, since the magnitude of
> the wrongness is limited to a minor squeak due to the small number of
> IPv6 LIR allocations.

If I had a choice as an LIR of doing something that will make my
new request a cake walk in 10 years time, or will require me to go
back and renumber 10 years worth of customers to comply, I would
much rather do the right thing now.

That requires me to know what the right thing is, up front.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070823/1db713cf/attachment.sig>