JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > This is not correct. PI is not available from 2 RIRs, and there is not a > clear view of when it will become available. In one of them, because the > timing of the Policy Development Process, it will take at least 15 months to > get it implemented and this in the case it is approved in the next meeting > in almost one year from now.
In other words you are trying to get "ULA PI" because the RIR policies take too long? You do realize that the ULA policies will have to also go through the same RIR communities and that they will be handled with the same skepticism as that those "PI" proposals (which allow a single end-user site to get a /32, which is really laughable) are being dealt with. > In the other one, even PA is not available unless you have 200 customers > (this is the same in other RIRs that already have PI). The IETF is not the place to discuss RIR policies. If the people who want to force through the new policies made up policies which actually made any sense and where fair to everybody then they would have been accepted already. With the current views on ULA (lets see how the next update of the draft will be) it is nothing more than just another variant of PI with a very weak attempt to avoid RIR policies, nothing else. If you really want to have "PI" in those RIR regions then come up with a good policy proposal on the RIR list, don't try to push it through. That is not how consensus works. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
