new 6bone pTLA prefix proposal, comments by 4 March 2002 please

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   We are seeing a recent increase in pTLA requests, and it prompts me to 
   recommend a change in pTLA prefix length to allow for future growth. 

=> I can't see an emergency in the current allocation system:
if we use a A-B-C class-like system, we have 3FFE:8000::/28 to
3FFE:BFF0::/28 ie. 1024 /28s when only 54 are already allocated.
So we can wait for 400 new allocations before looking for something else.

   ===
   
   In addition, I would like you to consider some possible policy changes:
   
   1. requiring existing pTLA /24 and /28 holders to renumber to a new /32, 
   unless justifying why it is not possible due to usage and/or address layout 
   issues, within 6 months (12 months?) of the change in policy.
   
=> I understand that first comers have an unfair advantage but have
we got complains?

   2. encouraging pTLA holders to apply for a production subTLA allocation 
   when they move to a fully production mode; requiring those charging for 
   service to also apply for a production subTLA allocation; requiring the 
   pTLA to be released within 6 months (12 months?) of acquiring a subTLA 
   unless justifying why the pTLA allocation is still needed/required.
   
=> production subTLAs have very different usage policies than pTLAs,
for instance here we have 2 subTLAs and 1 pTLA, we'd like to keep
the pTLA for special cases, for instance when an individual asks
for a site prefix. You may not do such things for subTLAs... and
we (G6) can not apply for a subTLA because we are not an ISP.

   3. pTLA holders should not assign pTLA based allocations to paying 
   customers except for early test/trial purposes.  paying customers should 
   always receive RIR based allocations when service is not for test/trial 
   purposes.
   
=> I agree: test/trial should always be free!

   4. requiring a restatement of pTLA usage and continuing need every 2 years.
   
=> this makes sense only with 5.

   5. requiring the return of a pTLA when it is no longer used by the original 
   requesting entity. this is the de facto policy, but has not been stated 
   previously.
   
=> I can't see a real need but I am by principle in favour of a real
management of resources.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr