[6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:31:45AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> 	there has never been a requirement that a prefix be routed or
> 	announced on the "Internet".  

Yes, and 32 bits are enough for everybody :-)

So maybe now is the time to look upon the way things have been done
in the past and consider "is that the way we want to do them in the
future"?

The IPv6 policy as it stands now (which doesn't say that it's cast in
stone or that it's a perfect policy - beware) gives IPv6 address space
to entities that claim that they are going to use it to facilitate 
internet access for (200 and more) 3rd parties.

So if that address space isn't visible, the prerequisites are not
fulfilled, obviously, and it would be in the boundaries of the policy
to take the address space back.

As of today, I do not think that's useful.  Why?  Because people might
just be slow in building their IPv6 networks, or have put their
projects on hold (due to financial reasons).  So being overly restrictive
here is just hurting IPv6 deployment, for no gain.

Something worth to do for someone with too much time on their hand is
to figure out whether those companies that have non-visible address
space actually still exist, or whether they went under - in which case
it would kind of "automatically" fall back to the registry.

But then this is certainly not a high priority job for the *registries*
- they have more important forward thinking to do.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  54495  (54267)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299