Hi Jordi, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: 18 December 2016 16:55 > > [...] > > The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new > policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a > longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to > do it at once, why wait for it?
I would recommend staying away from the HD-ratio expansion aspect for the time being as I suspect it could bog your main effort down. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I didn't encompass subsequent allocations within 2015-03 (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) as there are a number of issues hiding under that rock and so I thought it best to stay well away! Moreover, the policy development process seems to work best when focussing on specific issues and whilst updating parts of the policy in isolation can lead to inconsistencies and conflict I don't think we have that risk here - the evolving text echoing initial allocation criteria for subsequent allocation assessments should be able to sit side-by-side with the extant HD-ratio justification with the latter being subject to discussion and possible alteration further down the line. Don't get me wrong; I do think that the whole subject of HD ratios should be put under the spotlight but it would serve those organisations that are struggling with the lack of more general criteria for subsequent allocations better if the current proposal on the table isn't held up by going down that route with this proposal. For what it's worth, I think HD-ratios are a sensible approach that cater for the differences in pain threshold for expansion of small and (very) large networks; my only issue with them is that at present they are the only means by which to justify additional address space hence my support for additional criteria being able to be considered (in addition to HD-ratios). Regards, Mathew
