new IPv6 policy draft - real soon now

[Brian E Carpenter]

Right. Well, I still want to see the revised text before I
rush to judgement.

   Brian

Bob Fink wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> At 01:48 PM 4/15/99 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>   * 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.
> >
> >Well hang on a moment. sTLAs are intended for ISPs and exchange
> >points, and we're expecting them all to show up in the default-free
> >table. I don't see your point.
> 
> It is a built in discriminator for the future. That is, if in the future
> the larger ISPs with sTLAs decide to not carry routes for lesser sTLAs,
> they make their cut on length of prefix. I've been getting lots of flack
> from ESnet engineering staff for having any such built in discriminator (as
> if I had a choice :-). I had been skeptical at first that this was the
> intent, but increasingly I see that their fears are justified by comments
> such as Mirjam's.
> 
> TO say the least, I don't like it. It is basically the large (which often
> means more financially influential) being able to automatically
> discriminate against small. If it was simply a way to avoid ultra large
> routing tables, maybe it could be justified, but the hidden agenda that
> appears more and more in the v4 world is for large ISPs to muscle the
> smaller into paying for peering/connectivity.
> 
> It would be nice if v6 could stay as neutral as possible on this, and at
> least not give overtly obvious ways to encourage such behaviour.
> 
> Bob