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

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> My policy says, "Here's the objective criteria ARIN staff 
> will use 50 years from now to give you your second prefix."

Quite frankly, if that is the intent of your proposal then I am opposed
to it, regardless of what it says. In 50 years it is rather unlikley
that your proposal will survive untampered with.

> So all Michael's policy would do would be to change the 
> application to be on requests 3-n, where as without it it 
> would apply to 2-n.

Then you misunderstand my SUGGESTION. I was suggesting that an LIR could
come back to ARIN and say, "We messed up our earlier IPv6 applications
and would like to RETURN all previous IPv6 allocations and receive one
single new IPv6 allocation that meets our overall needs.". And ARIN
would say, "OK, sign this promise and return the old allocations in 6
months. Here is a big shiny new block for you.". Efficiency of the
previous allocations is irrelevant since we DO NOT WANT THE LIR TO WAIT
UNTIL THEY ARE FULLY USED. We do want the LIR to return the previous
allocations, renumber and REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF IPv6 announcements
in the global routing table.

--Michael Dillon