Re: 3177-bis

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>]

On 18/03/2008 15:41, "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:

[...]

> That paragraph is an indication of how easy the trap is to fall into. Number
> of addresses is not the issue, it is the measure of 'reasonable' and how
> much effort is required to justify more. Group-think is incapable of
> imagination, so there is no way to ever move beyond past practice.

This sounds like an argument for Plato's philosopher kings rather than the
sort of decision making process the IETF and RIRs use.

[...]

> Since we know the RIR policy will continue to be as stingy as possible,
> there will be fragmentation over time, so more bits just means a bigger
> scaling problem.

I have seen a number of RIRs make very large allocations. I am not aware of
anyone complaining that their request for a big chunk of IPv6 has been
denied by a stingy RIR. If you are aware of a problem with the RIRs' current
IPv6 policies then you should draft a policy proposal for a different
policy.

I've seen them liberalise their policies. You just need a convincing
argument.

Leo