Hi Marcelo,
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: 02 July 2004 10:49 To: Nils Ketelsen Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Hi Nils,
El 02/07/2004, a las 2:03, Nils Ketelsen escribió:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
Jon Lawrence <jon@lawrence.org.uk> writes: It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general.
I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need for address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy IPv6 in a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in their network.
imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.
What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term.
Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users then most ISPs.
how much is x?
x is irrelevant. -- Mat