RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
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.
to which i guess one option is what you mention below.... [...]
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?
Since the device count is not the limited resource but the route count is how about a completely different size measure. As a first attempt: 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in each country qualifying. 2. Any entity wanting an allocation must interconnect IPV6 at more than N of these points (and be an LIR of course) to qualify for an allocation. I don't know how the number of allocations would vary with N but a guess is that N=2 would be a reasonable number. Chris Cain
Hi, On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:17:03AM +0100, Chris Cain wrote:
2. Any entity wanting an allocation must interconnect IPV6 at more than N of these points (and be an LIR of course) to qualify for an allocation.
I don't know how the number of allocations would vary with N but a guess is that N=2 would be a reasonable number.
Interesting approach, but putting seriously disadvantages on ISPs in small countries... (Also, with the current trend in "upstream connectivity gets cheaper every day", more and more ISPs don't go to IXPs anymore, as it's just too expensive for a small ISP that's not located nearby to the IXP) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:17:03AM +0100, Chris Cain wrote:
Since the device count is not the limited resource but the route count is how about a completely different size measure.
As a first attempt: 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in each country qualifying.
But wouldn't that be a step into enforcing a more centralized internet infrastructure? I always thought that you want it as decentralized as possible? And this would give the peering point in the list an unfair advantage over alternative peering points in the area. I can already see peering points sueing the ripe to get on that list... And I have to admit they are right, as the RIPE should not assign monopolies. Nils -- Und wenn er einen MCSE hat, dann ist er zertifizierter Bootmanager. [ihr.name@strg-alt-entf.org (Ralph Angenendt) in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery]
On Friday 02 July 2004 11:17, Chris Cain wrote:
As a first attempt: 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in each country qualifying.
2. Any entity wanting an allocation must interconnect IPV6 at more than N of these points (and be an LIR of course) to qualify for an allocation.
There can't be a requirement to be at an interconnect point. I'm sure there are many ISPs/large enterprises out there that don't use IXP's but take transit directly from numerous providers. Jon
participants (4)
-
Chris Cain -
Gert Doering -
Jon Lawrence -
Nils Ketelsen