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

Today RIPE is trusting you for the 200 customers commitment, but I don't think this is the point.

Why not compare with the IPv4 allocations ? Is there any minimum number of customers in x years ?

LACNIC, I believe, is also just granting the /32 if you commit to route it in some years (not sure how many), independently of how many customers you bring up.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sascha Luck" <ripe-lst at eirconnect.net>
To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [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
> 
> 


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.