new IPv6 policy draft - real soon now

[Mirjam Kuehne]

Hi David,

thanks for adding some details.

 David Kessens <david@Qwest.net> writes:
  * 
  * Mirjam,
  * 
  * On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 04:59:18PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
  * > 
  * > A working group was created to discuss allocation policies.
  * > This working group also discussede the initial allocation criteria
  * > as proposed in the current draft (with participation on the 6bone added
  * > as one criteria). 
  * 
  * The wg was (interim-)chaired by: Sandra Reimer from McLeadUSA. I hope
  * we will be able to get the minutes from her as soon as possible.
  * 
  * > The feedback was very positive, also regarding the slow start
  * > mechanism.  We also received useful input regarding some of the
  * > parameters in the allocation criteria, for example 12 for the number
  * > of months within which IPv6 services will have to be provided and 
  * > 42 :-) for the number of customers the ISP has to have in one of the
  * > other criteria (we'll probably round this up or down in the final
  * > document :-)
  * 
  * It was my impression that the number of 42 was the optimal number and
  * that nobody wanted to have anything less/more ;-). There is no reason
  * to start playing again with those numbers. Another point that was
  * discussed was the removal of the condition entirely since the other
  * condition (intent to provide IPv6 service) was easier to qualify for
  * anyways.
  * 
  * The biggest concern left was the slow start procedure within the sTLA.
  * It was discussed at length but no agreement could be reached. The
  * registries want to have some kind of control against allocations that
  * are given out that are not used as they are supposed to be used, while

One other reason is that if all organisations/networks have the same
prefix length ISPs will have difficulties to make rationale routing
decisions if that may be necessary in the future.

Mirjam

  * at the same time most customers of the registries would obviously like
  * to have maximum freedom & minimal paperwork. The registries asked for
  * alternatives that would have the same effect - one of the variations
  * that was discussed, was to make the slow start even slower (eg.: you
  * can only assign a very small number of NLAs before returning to the
  * registry), and to allocate the full space soon thereafter. It was
  * agreed that more discussion this topic would be needed.
  * 
  * David K.
  * ---
  *