Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:10:20PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> This isn't the place for a polemic about RFC 1918 or ASNs. But we should
> certainly not encourage the use of "private resources" for IPv6 addresses.
> Right now there are no private resources (site locals are being deprecated,
> and their replacement is not yet agreed), and we need to do everything
> to discourage barriers in IPv6. I suggest deleting the reference to IPv6
> in this sentence.

This is a very good suggestion.

Regarding the "200 customers", not in the RIPE region many NRENs have
allocations even though they do not have 200 universities to serve.  There
has to be some flexibility in the RIR interpreting the intent of the
applicant, rather than the applicant playing the numbers game to get their
request granted.

I would much rather see consistent text in all RIRs than divergence of
policies.

One area that is a little fuzzy (I would welcome clarification) is the
experimental allocations that RIRs can make.  These would seem the place
for some consistency (in policy and pricing!) now that 6bone prefixes
are no longer available.   Any small startups or experimenting ISPs could
then utilise such address space, helping the bootstrap issue while keeping
a more consistent policy?

Tim