Re: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-01-23, at 23.38, Randy Bush wrote:

>> So, do you think that the isps would benefit from a homogenous policy 
>> in
>> all the aspects or they would just require homogeneity in some 
>> specific
>> aspects of the policy (such size of the address blocks assigned).
>
> i'll settle for what i can get.  but prefix length and swamp locations 
> are
> biggies.  just think like a router.

While I agree with Randy, and while I generally think that the current 
situation with different policies in each region is bad, as it makes 
people/companies go to the RIR that meets their needs the best - there 
are also regional/local differences that to some extent need to be 
catered for. Like what Marcelo says about allocation criteria.

To make things worse, at least initially (and I think still) there 
where quite different views in the regions on what the allocation 
criteria should be. This was to some extent due the different 
membership models of the various RIRs. I still have quite some sympathy 
for the original RIPE LIR-WG proposal that anyone who was a member of 
RIPE NCC would get an allocation (actually I think it was anyone who 
applied - and given the current landslide that might have been a good 
thing(tm) ). Yes, it would put a price on addresses. But if you really 
need portable addressspace, you got to be this tall to ride...

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQBIlUqarNKXTPFCVEQJHlgCferB26d5C49/XZwjxneVAW7yMngUAoIcx
SlOhMS0S/jJqql+97CW2p7Kb
=v+f3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6