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

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:46:48AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Note: end sites can get _lots_ of address space from their ISP. The
> issue is not about getting address space, it's whether address space
> is obtained direct from an RIR (with the presumption that it will be
> PI) or from the ISP.

What is an ISP then? Is an organization, providing a network to a
few thousand (internal) suborganizations an ISP? 

If yes: Most companies will qualify as an ISP then, giving you the same
problems you also have when allowing everyone getting address space.

If no: All the universities, the governments, the RIPE itself, the IANA etc
do no longer qualify for receiving allocations. 

> We simply do not know how to scale routing within the network if we
> give every end site its own direct allocation. Given that we don't

As I already mentioned earlier in this thread:

You can either make IPv6 attractive to the business and hope for better
technology or you make it easy for the technology and wait for people
changing how they do business. 

I think technology will improve a long time before business people will
invest money to get rid of benefits.

I think this whole policy is too much tech-driven. But if the goal of the
policy is to get IPv6 rolling, you can not only concentrate on a nice and
shiny network from the engineering point of view. You also need to make it
attractive to the potential customer.

Internet on IPv4 was easy to bring to the customer, because it gave him a
benefit without taking something away from him. It increased his
possibilities. Now you are trying to bring a technology to the customer,
that will limit his possibilities through the policies for handing out the
ressource needed for the tech. Why should anyone be interested in that?

> No. The reason for this rule is fundamentally a technical one.  We do
> not know how to give every end site a direct allocation and keep the
> routing system afloat. This is a _real_ technical issue, and is not
> just something the ISPs have dreamed up to capture customers. (Well,
> some ISPs may welcome this as a side-effect, but it is not the real
> motivation for the policy).

Still the question is open: What is the logic in allowing a 200 customer
(one server per customer) ISP an allocation and at the same time deny it to
companies with thousands of servers and hundreds of thousands of
workstations? What makes the company calling itself ISP more worthy for an
allocation than ACME corp? 

Sorry, it only makes sense when you are an ISP. Otherwise I can not detect
any logic in that. But you want the endsites to use IPv6. If only the
providers use it you will end up with a very boring network.

Nils
-- 
May Brute Force be with you