Re: apnic - second day better

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

more ipv6 discussion, presentations at
<http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/ipv6.html>:

  o some worry that process to get rid of site-local will delay
    formal ietf publication which makes /48 the border between
    engineering and policy.  i [unofficially] said that there was
    long clear consensus on /48, but if they are worried please
    tell the ietf, e.g., the addr dir, what they need from the
    ietf.

  o much description of an ipv6 conference and all the cute things
    which were ip controlled using ipv6.  i was kind and did not
    ask how much of it was uniquely implementable with ipv6.  some
    actually use mipv6.

address policy, presentations at
<http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/policy.html>:


  o much discussion of how policy is decided.  a bit more open and
    slow process is being considered.  no real clue as to how wide
    the effect of decisions is.

  o jpnic wants to 'clarify' v6 policy to essentially liberalize it
    further.

  o ray plzak of arin presented a pan-rir proposal for how iana
    should allocate ipv4 space to rirs.  it struck me as generally
    a good structure, but rather liberal and not conservative of
    space.  e.g., an rir burning a /8 every three years could get a
    new /8 when it still had 49% of one left.

  o ripe-261 was presented and pushed, which asks iana to allocate
    /8s to an rir for them to then allocate using the binary chop
    algorithm.  some discussion and confusion after i pointed out
    that this is 1/32 of the fp=1 space per rir allocation.

  o discussion of non-major changes to policy for allocation to
    exchange points.

  o proposal to regulate transfer of historical address space which
    would strongly encourage, but not mandate, the recipient be an
    apnic member, i.e. incur annual costs etc.  this is likely a
    trial ballon for a change which will be across all registries.

randy