In addition to agreeing to all of what you wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:
1) The document is very poor. [I’m being uncharacteristically
diplomatic.] It contains lots of errors. The proposed addressing
plans are just wrong.
"Arbitrary" would be a more appropriate term than "just wrong" in this
context.
There is no objective basis for carving ipv6 site allocations into the 5
categories specified. It is one way of doing things, but there are many
others and there is no fundamental basis for the ITU to recommend this
model over any other.
Tying ipv4 and ipv6 allocation strategies together is bizarre and in my
experience, pointless to the degree of being self-destructive. IPv4
suffers from potentially crippling shortages and address allocation
optimisation requirements for ipv4 bear no relation to sensible and
relevant optimisation strategies for ipv6. Is is extraordinary to see
the two conflated in a document like this.
> It would be a*huge* mistake for anyone to adopt these and much, much
> worse if SG20 recommends them for global adoption. SG20 should
> abandon this fundamentally flawed document. Work on it simply has to
> stop.
It's not good enough to shout at the ITU and say it's out of scope - as
Antonio noted, this work is going to go ahead at the ITU whether it
makes sense or not. Probably the RIR / NRO community needs to examine
this problem itself and either come up with a series of recommendations
or non-recommendations.
Nick
