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

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist 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 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.

No.

The policy is:

"d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other 
organisations within two years."

Are an ISP's own PoPs or other parts of infrastructure "other
organisations"?

Nope. Never.  Not by any English dictionary :).

The purpose at this point is to clarify the policy, not to change it.

You're confusing the issue by saying what you believe an optimal
policy *SHOULD* be.  I have an opinion about that as well, but that's
out of scope of this debate, i.e., what the policy is and what it was
intended to be (and 'other organisations' makes it crystal clear IMHO
that you were not intended to count the internal assignments).

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