> We agree to go more liberal when we set the current policy. > But I still believe that starting of allocating /2x size > to requesting ISPs who has nothing but only because they > have IPv4 customer is, I think, too far liberal. > Is this the sound model that ISP never come back to RIR > for sub-allocation? Is this not against the basics of > address allocation that address provides when it is needed?
there has been a long history of the ivtf v6 designers' view of the operational/social issues. essentially, it is based on a belief that the internet is severely hampered by users having to go to evil isps for ip space, isps having to go to evil rirs for address space, and recently, rirs having to go to the evil iana for address space. if only ip address space was freely available without any operational administratriva, ipv6 would be wildly successful and the world would be saved. personally, i am most enamored of the next-stage model, where isps do not have to actually have all those messy circuits to be able to deliver packets. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
