On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 08:05:17PM +0000, Zefram wrote: > Alain Durand wrote: > >While doing those edits, why not also remove the dictate to give > >permanent allocations from this document? > >After all, this is also an operational/business discussion, not a > >technical one. > > It looks pretty technical to me. Permanent versus temporary allocation > fundamentally affects the ways the prefix can be used. This is quite > unlike the issue of the allocation procedure. > > By the way, do you see any redeeming features in the idea of temporary > allocation of these prefixes? I see only greater complexity and reduced > utility.
One snag is that if they are temporary, it will inevitably lead to "returns" that don't happen, and the original and new "owners" both using the prefix, which will cause confusion/ambiguity/lack of uniqueness, which is thus breaking the original goal of the draft. There's enough under the /7 to not need to have temporary allocations. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
