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

Hi Mat,
>>


>> 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.
>

I agree that allocating prefixes w.r.t the location in the hierarchy 
preserves aggregation, which is vital for the routing system 
scalability.
otoh, i am not sure that imposing that a network with zillions of nodes 
must renumber when changing isps is a reasonable requirement.
that is why, defining what a very large network is may be useful

regards, marcelo

>>> 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
>