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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-06-17, at 15.33, Jon Lawrence wrote:

>>
>> 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.

Which I am arguing is silly.

We want IPv6 deployment to take off, right? So let's set the threshold 
for getting blocks fairly low. There is already a price on IPv6 blocks, 
the LIR fee. The 200 sites/end-users/customers/whatever does not make 
much sense. We are all even using fairly divergent specs for what the 
requirement is. And I don't remember it from the top of my head.

However, I would argue that 200 assignments (internal, external, 
whatever you want) is enough. It's a measurement we have fairly good 
grip on by now.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNM9nqarNKXTPFCVEQJ0vACeMyf8pn3MCKOHZT0076rL1vzrh88An0LB
rgIYdV5omq+OFA3Qs7/vB9Xw
=ABb2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----