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

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

>>> 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 disagree. If we are to count assignments, we are to count internal 
ones as well. IF you then feel that 200 is to low, let's discuss.

> 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.

Actually, this "might" argument only came after it was apparent that 
the reason that noone was asking for IPv6 allocations was that they 
realized they would never have 200 customers within two years. At least 
that is what I remember.


I think we can stay with the 200 limit, BUT - Count internal blocks

- - kurtis -

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

iQA/AwUBQNM8sqarNKXTPFCVEQLb6wCeMJEzabA9xxFzI3jvkXCwW1jz5Z4AoKBn
AceQTK4bDkpvEUg5sadZedWB
=B9CA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----