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

Replying to two messages in one go..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> On Thursday 17 June 2004 10:20, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > I saw that -- but I don't see *any* justification for this
> > interpretation.  Remember, the goal is to require 200 assignments to
> > *other* organizations, not be satisfied that you can make 200
> > assignemnts to your internal network, or 100 assignments to your
> > internal network and 100 to other organizations!
> 
> And this is part of the problem.
> We won't be rolling IPv6 out ot 200 customers any time soon.
> So we can't get an allocation. Thus we can't run trials with IPv6.
> I really fail to see the reason behind the 200 other organisation rule - 
> perhaps somee one would like to explain the logic.

Now, this is another argument *altogether*, not a reason to start
counting internal assignments.  If we want to discuss whether
rewording the 200 customers rule needs tuning, let's discuss that.

I think the spirit (and the implementation) of the policy is that if
you have 200 customers which *might* want IPv6 (but you haven't seen
actual interest from 200 customers), and you'd be willing to give it
to them if they asked, you'd qualify under the "200" rule in any case.  
Nobody will be withdrawing your allocation just because all your
customers didn't yet realize that IPv6 is a good thing.

Bertrand Maujean <bertrand.maujean at semnet.tm.fr>:
> we face the same problem. We are a small internet access provider in France.
> We provide internet in residential areas, and our customers currently use
> less than one IPv4 address per home. 

Because they use NAT with IPv4.  They won't with IPv6, so they require
sufficient number of addresses -- at least a /64, and in case they'd
want to subnet, a /48.  The simplest would be just giving /48 to
everyone.

> We do not want to assign a /48 to all
> our customers only to meet RIPE's criteria.

Do you mean that you don't want to give the users a /48, but rather
something smaller, like /64?

That's a bad idea IMHO.

> We prefer using only a /32 for each of our broadband access server, and /48
> only for customers asking for it (ie : customers who have a router, several
> subnets, ...).

/32 for each broadband access router?  How many /32's do you intend to 
get??! :)  Was this a typo?

Why not just give /48 to everyone whether they want it or not?  Or at 
least reserve /48 to everyone, but only assign a /64 or the like if 
they don't support prefix delegation or other mechanisms?

That way you'd fulfill the allocation criteria as well, and make the 
users happier.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings