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

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

Hi Brian,

[...]
> >
> > Being overly restrictive in the IPv6 allocation policy is a bad signal -
> > there is enough address space, and the global routing table will easily
> > cope with 2000 prefixes per region - we should try to make people
> > *accept* IPv6, not hinder its deployment based on some unreasonable
> > fears.
>
> Gert is correct. Indeed the LACNIC draft contains one very disturbing
> phrase in this respect:
>
> >> LACNIC shall encourage the use of private resources (whenever
> possible),
> >> both for IPv4 RFC 1918 and IPv6 addresses as well as for ASN
> (64512-65535).
>
> 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.
>


Agreed, but i think you are talking about the exprimental allocation policy
proposal and not about the IPv6 policy proposal, right?.

Regards, marcelo

> Regards
>    Brian
>
> P.S. I've deleted the CC to the ICANN Board. I suppose it was put there
> by "Jeff Williams." Whoever plays "Jeff Williams" on the Internet seems
> to enjoy cross posting to irrelevant lists.