I believe that what is going on here is a case of someone making an
extreme proposal in the hope that a moderate one will be gladly
accepted instead.
There may well be changes which could be made to the existing PDP, but
I don't believe that doing away with all policy is appropriate as a
first step. My take on this is that this will move to a working group
which will put forward some suggested options.
With that in mind, do people think that there are areas of the APNIC
PDP which need to be looked at or changed?
Regards,
Dean
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jim Cheetham
1. Introduction ------------------- IPv4 is history, with no need to add more policy. IPv6 is sufficiently plentiful that further policies are not needed. So let us agree to make no more IP address policies or proposals.
I think I agree with the intent of this proposal, but I don't believe that the IPv6 world is ready for zero policy, because there are still technical limitations that service providers face ... especially around sparse occupancy of the address space (e.g. reverse DNS and non-aggregatable routes)
In the face of zero policy, I would reasonably be able to request multiple very small disjoint netblocks, and reject large netblocks. This wouldn't be very good.
So, with the exact language of the proposal being "further policies are not needed", this protects the existing policies, and everything is fine. I think that there should be a review process referred to in this policy however, to make sure that there is a way to react when the technical landscape changes in the future.
-jim