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

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Måns Nilsson 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:
[...]

Remember, the current policy was designed to meet two goals:

 1) giving easy access to an IPv6 prefix allocation for real ISPs, and
 2) not giving a prefix to enterprises or "toy" (or other small) ISPs.

The mechanisms how this has been policed to a degree have been the
"200 /48's" and "_to other organizations_" rules.

If we still agree that we don't want to give /32's to enterprises, toy 
ISPs without any real number of customers (hey! my consulting company 
has two connectivity customers as well, should I get a /32 prefix?), 
or such, we have to keep in some checks.

On the other hand, I think everyone agrees that real ISPs, with a 
large numbers of customers, should get a v6 allocation without any 
hassle.  The current policy has allowed that, even though it's wording 
(".. in two years") might have been a bit scary.

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