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

On Monday 21 June 2004 18:31, Gert Doering wrote:

> If you estimate that you will continue to be very small, you could use
> a /40 or such from one of your upstream ISPs (which is a problem *today*,
> as there are not enough upstream ISPs, indeed).

I could get native IPv6 connectivity from 3 upstreams today (OK, only from 2 
for commercial purposes). TTBOMK, no multihoming facility exists without your 
own /32 allocation (considering aggregation, probably just as well).

> If you are in good hope to reach more than 200 customers, you fulfill
> the criteria (as has been mentioned before).

Of course, I'm in good hope of reaching that goal. If that's good enough, fine 
but how do I document this hope? Will the NCC take my word for it? ;)

> You are wrong on this :-) - the policy was discussed again and again at
> various RIPE meetings in the past 5 years.  We had an interim policy, which
> was bad, but better than none.  Then we had this policy, which is still
> not perfect, but enabled us to make progress.

Fair enough. I've only attended sporadically in the last few years, so this 
may well have slipped past me. Mea culpa.

> Quite a number of people from various regions insisted on it, at that time,
> for fear of a "landrush" or "routing table explosion" (routing table slots
> *are* a scarce resource indeed, but changing this policy to "every LIR
> in existance today gets one" won't hurt *that* much).

Well the landslide hasn't happened as far as I can see :) Even though I'd love 
to see it happen. 
The routing table does need to be considered, but it still is IMO a technical 
problem. Although it seems there is a shift in v4 policies away from 
aggregation in favour of conservation (no more reservations for contiguous 
address space, etc) 

> The way people work, usually only those who are unhappy take the burden
> to figure out *where* to voice their unhappiness...

Hmm, reminds me of the recent European elections ;)

> So shall we abandon it?  In favour of *what* to replace it?

My proposal would be similar to the ARIN (I think) one: 
Any LIR in good standing is entitled to a /32 with justification for any 
follow-up allocation.

Best regards,
Sascha Luck
Eirconnect