Gert, On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:38:40PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
As an example, I don't believe we can justify that a very large entity has (perceived) difficulties in obtaining ipv6 addresses while a tiny ISP that has plans for 200 customers but doesn't quite have that many customers yet and in total has less users than the large entity will get a /32 without any problem.
Basically, we don't need additional policies, we need a modification of the current policy to make sure that users of address space of similar size will get and can get similar sized blocks of address space.
Partly I agree, and to some extent I disagree - the *size* of the block isn't what people seem to be worrying about. The sheer fact that someone can get (or not) an "independent BGP routing table slot" - which is always "one", no matter how big the network is - seems to be.
Starting to hand out different sizes might lead people to connecting "importance" to "network size", which would be a wrong signal.
I didn't say that sizes have to be different. I said that an organization with X number of users should get a similar amount of address space as another organization that has X number of users whether it is an ISP or not. As it is however, we currently do give out different sizes as a /32 is the minimum. My personal opinion is that we should keep this minimum as is if we decide to only give out address space to organizations with a very large number of users. My opinion is different if it is decided that organizations with a fairly small numbers of users can get address space directly from the RIPE NCC. A /32 is already extremely generous and at some point it just gets completely ridiculous. David Kessens ---