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

Hi,
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:31:41 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>In fact, I have not heard anyone stand up and say "WE MUST KEEP THE 200 
>CUSTOMER RULE!" - most people voiced some sort of "well, it's there, it
>doesn't do much harm, we can live with it", but nobody has actively stood
>up in favour of it.  Has anyone?
>
>So shall we abandon it?  In favour of *what* to replace it?
My suggestion:
"To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must:
a) be an LIR;
b) not be an End Site;
c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to non-affiliated organisations to which it
will assign parts of this address space according to the RIPE policy; and
d) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to a significant part of their non-affiliated
customer base by advertising such connectivity through its single aggregated
address allocation"

There is no well defined check for c) and d) (which is the same as the 200
customers limit, *of course* we all *plan* to provide connectivity to millions
of very well paying IPv6 customers and would like to gain the income, however
the reality in the market tells us something different).

However it gives the NCC some chance to ask questions about allocations
to "we need this rare resource" non-ISP organisations.

However "ceterum censeo": The multihoming-without-renumbering problem
must be solved *for such organisations* or IPv6 *won't* gain a significant
market share. This is because e.g. Banks are not ISP's and clearly won't
qualify for an allocation in most cases, *however* they won't give up their
ISP independence gained by their LIR or PI status. And e.g. home banking
might be some important argument for most customers ...

Best Regards
Oliver Bartels



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0