Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
On 8/4/13 09:59 , bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational need for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space.... So the rules for v6 allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation policies.
I disagree, /64 is easily justified by how the protocols are defined, so is a /56 and probably a /48 for a business customer. You may want to argue if the protocols should have been defined to use a whole /64 for a single Ethernet. But that is not an RIR policy question, that is an IETF protocol question. The RIR's have to work with the protocols as the IETF defines them. I'm not saying you are necessary wrong, just that this isn't the forum.
The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, when there was -no- other option.
Again I disagree, if you wanted a Class A or B you needed to justify the request, it was relatively easy by comparison for sure. And if you wanted more you had to explain what you did with the ones you had. But justification didn't just come in with conservation or scarcity, it always been there, what has changed is the standards for the justification. I'm not stuck on the current standards for justification, but eliminating both "operational need" and any concept of "fairness" to replace it is an issue for me. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
On 8/4/13 09:59 , bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational need for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space.... So the rules for v6 allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation policies.
I disagree, /64 is easily justified by how the protocols are defined, so is a /56 and probably a /48 for a business customer. You may want to argue if the protocols should have been defined to use a whole /64 for a single Ethernet. But that is not an RIR policy question, that is an IETF protocol question. The RIR's have to work with the protocols as the IETF defines them. I'm not saying you are necessary wrong, just that this isn't the forum.
perhaps. but wasted space is wasted space.
The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, when there was -no- other option.
Again I disagree, if you wanted a Class A or B you needed to justify the request, it was relatively easy by comparison for sure. And if you wanted more you had to explain what you did with the ones you had. But justification didn't just come in with conservation or scarcity, it always been there, what has changed is the standards for the justification.
see previous post. then, verification was the Buffet test... simply by making the request was verification of need. today, the verification process boarders on harrassment and restraint of trade. I think either extream is fraught with peril.
I'm not stuck on the current standards for justification, but eliminating both "operational need" and any concept of "fairness" to replace it is an issue for me.
Good thing there is the forum for public dialog. :) /bill
participants (2)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
David Farmer