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

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:09:27AM +0100, matthew.ford at bt.com wrote:
> > 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.

Which again brings up the question why a largish multihomed enterprise
with links to ISPs in 30 different countries and 500 subsidiaries
should not be granted an IPv6 allocation, while a small ISP somewhere 
in rural Germany with a single uplink and 200 dial-up customers *should*.

Or why a big international carrier network that just doesn't do 
direct end-site allocations (think of the way the "Ebone" did 
business: only ISP down-stream customers, all having their own IP 
space already) should not be able to get an IPv6 allocation.

(Just as a side note: there's an I-D draft out there to tie IPv6 allocations 
to AS numbers...  though I'm not convinced that this is a good way to go, 
because it's likely to deplete the AS number space even faster, and
[worse] move the "who is worthy?" discussion to the AS number policy).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299