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

On Thursday 17 June 2004 13:23, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> 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.

Agreed - I was just wondering if anyone remembered why the 200 rule came into 
being in the first place.
The documentation clearly states 200 end user sites. So I'd interpret that as 
meaning that internal assignments didn't count.

> 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.

Must say I'd never thought of it quite like that. I suppose you could see it 
as 'I planned to issue 200 /48's but my customers couldn't or wouldn't use 
IPv6'.

Jon