Hi,
I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
«In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)»
Yep, seen that.
If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
Ack
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption» as before.
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that? Cheers, Sander