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

--On fredag 18 juni 2004 21.13 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
<kurtis at kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
 
> But, I *think* that Gerts point was that our job is to make it as easy 
> as possible to prepare for when (if) customers want IPv6.

And our customers want it (since we're NREN, few others care right now..)
but we've got our /32 so all is nice and hunky dory and they are satisifed.
As soon as we can get these shiny v4 routers behave, that is. 

OTOH, I'd hate to see the same mistakes (that seemed reasonable at the
time) that were made in the v4 sunrise period be repeated in v6, like:

* too small assignments for customers forcing NAT in use,

* dependency on temporary hacks that suddenly must be made permanent to
keep the world rolling,  [0]

* The tendency of RIRen to act as if their main task was conserving address
space when their job is to make sure that all reasonable requests get
served. 

The way around this, imho, is to make large enough initial assignments, and
to be liberal with them. I think that the 200 customer rule is silly,
invites to lies, and in general, is counterproductive. Better would be to
hand out one /32 (because I think it is a nice size) to any LIR asking for
one, and then perhaps be tough on the second one. 

So:

1. Define that the 200 customers rule is "something", either including
internal assignments or not.

2. Kill it. For it is bad. 

3. Focus on multihoming.  

-- 
Måns Nilsson         Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC
                        MN1334-RIPE

[0] I bet a beer that we'll see luser outcry june 7th 2005 because the nice
3FFE addresses don't work like they used to, coupled with a range of quick 
hacks to get it back running again. Imagine: Tunneling 3FFE:: over 2001::
over v4 to get around the deprecation.. MTU 384 bytes, on a lucky day ;-)