Dear AP WG, Sander and I have looked at the mails sent by you about the proposal 2011-04 (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation), and I tried to categorize everything hat has been said into bins like "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", "clarification" - the result of that is at the end of this mail. In the initial discussion phase, I counted nearly 150 e-mails. Of those that expressed a clear "support" or "opposition" opinion, the majority were in support for the proposal, thus we moved on to review phase, with some textual changes as suggested by you. In review phase, 3 people voiced their support, nobody voiced objections, and none of the people that had objections in discussion phase stated their opinion (neither positive nor negative). Given that, we assume that those that had reservations agreed to disagree but didn't want to stop the proposal, or agreed with our assessment that we have enough support to go ahead. The main argument for objection that we could make out was "this is not good stewardship, to give people more addresses than they need, without providing any documentation". I can see the argument, but I'm also convinced that part of good stewardship is 'finding the right balance between "too big" and "too small"' - and since a number of operators have spoken up and said that being able to increase their /32 to a /29 "just so" would ease their deployment, we took that as a strong enough counterargument. The argument voiced that "we should not make a specific proposal for 6rd" was already taken into account - the proposal is technology-agnostic. So, we think that we have enough support and no sustained opposition to call consensus, and move to Last Call. Emilio will do the formal announcement from the PDO tomorrow. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair ----------------------------------------------------- Discussion Phase pro Michael Adams (want bits, not 6rd) Roger Jørgensen Anfinsen, Ragnar Sascha Lenz (want bits, not 6rd) Andy Davidson (with "ask for it" clause) Daniel Holme (no protocol specifics!) James Blessing (with additions for existing address holders, taken into v2.0 Jasper Jans David Freedman Roman Sokolov Tero Toikkanen Job Snijders Tom Hodgson (more bits, not tied to mechanisms) Wilhelm Boeddinghaus Rinse Kloek Sascha Luck Florian Fuessl Jerzy Pawlus Daniel Roesen against, with "want to see proper documentation that says 6rd" James Blessing [answered by Jan Zorz, discussion ended, later agreed] Martin Millnert Mikael Abrahamsson [give everybody who says "6rd" a /31] Nick Hilliard [answered by Jan Zorz, "is ask-for-it enough?"] Tim Chown against, with "make it easy to get a /29, but not automatic, ask for it" Remco Van Mook [answered by Jan Zorz, taken into v2.0 -> agreed] against, with "6rd is a bad protocol and there should be a temporary block" Turchanyi Geza [answered by Jan Zorz, "this is not 6rd-specific", Ole Troan, Ragnar Anfinsen] clarification Mikael Abrahamsson (reservation of a /26?) [answered by chair and proposer] Andy Davidson (would reservation be OK from global policy PoV?) Martin Stanislav (please clarify exact rules for /29../31, answered by prop.] unclear whether in favour or against Dan Luedtke Martin Millnert (*if* 6rd as a special case, make it temporary-only) [answered by Jan Zorz] Daniel Suchy chrish@consol.net "not big enough" side-track Randy Bush (let's go to a /16) [answered by chair, David Conrad, Roger Jørgensen, Jan Zorz, Florian Weimer] "make subsequent allocation policy easier (instead of initial?)" side-track Dan Luedtke [answered by Michael Adams, chair] Daniel Roesen [answered by chair, Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook] "does 6rd need a /31 or /24?" side-track Mikael Abrahamsson, Jan Zorz "which operators are asking for 6rd" side-track Martin Millnert, Jan Zorz, Michael Adams "alternatives to 6rd" and "is it infinite?" side-track Ahmed Abu-Abed [answered by Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook, Ole Troan, Nick Hilliard, Roger Jørgensen] "why not make it a /26 or /24 right away?" side-track Roger Jørgensen, Leo Vegoda, Nick Hilliard, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz ------------------------------------------------------------------- review phase pro Michael Adams Tiberiu Ungureanu Gleb Katenin side-track: "subsequent allocations Michael Adams, Tiberiu Ungureanu, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz, Nick Hilliard side-track: "how much address space does google have?" chrish@consol.net, Gleb Katenin -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279