[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 113: IPv6 for 6rd

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> I think the confusion arises from the first sentence of the 
> proposal, and I recommend that it be reworded if my second 
> interpretation is not actually the intent of the proposal. 
> I'll reserve judgment about whether I'm for or against until 
> I can get that clarified.

It could use a bit more rewording than that.

Why is there a technical example in the policy text instead of
in the rationale?

I'd be in favor of a policy that allowed holders of /32 or bigger
blocks justified normally, to ask for an additional larger
and TEMPORARY block to deploy the transition technology known
as 6RD. Of course, when the public Internet has transitioned 
to IPv6 and 6RD is being decommissioned in favor of simple
plain IPv6, then the 6RD allocation would be returned to ARIN.
It would also be nice for ARIN to ask the question, every year,
When will you return your 6RD allocation and to publish that
target date in the whois directory entry for the allocation.

--Michael Dillon