Hi, On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:01:12PM +0100, boggits wrote:
On 21 October 2011 11:44, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
Okay, I can see the logic, but please can we not do this :)
I'm all for allowing a policy that says LIR can request a /29 rather than a /32 and that deploying 6rd is a valid reason for allocating a /29 as an initial block but can we do this by having the LIR send the documentation in and having it reviewed for logic.
The feedback we got at the last RIPE meeting was "please do not tie this to a specific transition technology, and go down the rathole of potentially having to revoke the allocation if 6rd is no longer in use".
So the proposers have decided to go for the "minimum fuzz" thing - ask for it, get it.
I'm not exactly sure how you're proposing to modify this? "Special case for 6rd only"?
My personal opinion on 6RD is: if it is to be treated as a special case, it should be a special case, meaning it is a temporary allocation (like all others, but with emphasis), valid only so long it is used. A 6RD allocation should be 100% 6RD and no other use of it should be allowed, so that it can easily be returned once the 6RD deployment is no longer in use. That, or, roll native. ;) Best, Martin