On Jul 6, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Per Heldal wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 11:12 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hello WG,
I want to continue the discussion about the Final /8 proposals (2008-06 and 2009-04). The responses to my last question ("Do we (this working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?") were 100% negative: We don't want IPv6 related requirements in the Final /8 policy.
I think APNIC has got it mostly right. To reserve some space for transition-services is the only suggestion I've seen that can have a lasting effect throughout the transition period. Everything else has been/is about skewing the balance to change who gets most out of the remaining chunks.
Keep it simple. One single fixed-size block for each new registrant that qualify for or already has a v6 block, and no prior v4 allocation.
A whole /8 for might be more than necessary for this though. How many /20 - /22 -size allocations does RIPE-NCC make each year where the registrant has no prior allocation?
The intention of such a policy is IMHO primarily to protect new innovative players from abuse (extortion) by the V4 powerhouses. Once established they should seek expansion elsewhere (v6) or compete for the same resources as everyone else. One-size-fits all is therefore appropriate, as it would be near impossible for the NCC to differentiate.
This more or less makes sense, you might define these blocks as "PI" to circumvent the whole membership discussion and wether or not a reciver of such block should need to be PI. MarcoH