RE: IPv6 Allocation Policy
"Michel Py" <michel-nyboWHt8SIrJRljzj3WzodHdOEOI8IWic20RSKp2L0g@public.gmane.org>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F8E0@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> |
Hi Izumi, > Izumi Okutani wrote: > Thanks for summarising the choices. May I suggest adding > "Producing an IPv6 guide" as an option to deal with the > issues as well? I hope you are not thinking about me to write this guide, as I do not feel qualified by any means. I was merely trying to contribute to the question that Gert raised a while ago about from a protocol designer's point of view. > I am thinking of a guide similar to APNIC's "APNIC guidelines > for IPv4 allocation and assignment requests" > (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv4-guidelines.html), > but should be shared among all RIRs for IPv6 version. What about: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html This document is common to all RIRs AFAIK. It might not be as flexible as you wish, but I would gladly leave improvements and/or additions to it in the capable hands of Thomas Narten and other valued colleagues that have experience in policy matters. I will gladly comment on technical solutions and their relation to policy matters. Thanks, Michel. P.S: Note to Gert: Given the zero interest and the multiple hurdles associated with the geographic scheme I suggested earlier, I'll gladly drop it in favor of your proposed solution of allocating a large block to each RIR up front. Related to IANA-to-RIR delegation, I still think that this geo scheme is superior to a single monolithic block and makes sense from an engineer's point of view, but is a political liability that I can't commit any resources to lobby for. _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6