[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

Hi Marcelo, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of 
> marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: 02 July 2004 10:49
> To: Nils Ketelsen
> Cc: address-policy-wg at 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 at 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