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

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 at strg-alt-entf.org (Ralph Angenendt) in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery]