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

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 07:04:28PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote:
> 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).

As of today, multihoming with a more-specific from one of your upstreams
will work - using the classic BGP multihoming approach.

I don't know what the multi6 WG will come up with in the end, but can't
really imagine that there is something else which will work for an ISP.

> > 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? ;)

They have to :-) - in the last 5 years, hardly anybody could be *sure* to 
have 200 IPv6 customers after two years - but unless you are sure that you
won't reach that goal (due to your customer structure, whatever) the
underlying goal is "optimism and get IPv6 rolled out".

[..]
> > 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. 

Things are moving, and I think the current pace isn't too bad.  Too fast
will not necessarily help...

> 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) 

Let's not discuss IPv4 policy in this thread (but I agree).

[..]
> > 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.

Well, initially all regions had the "200 customers" rule (which made the
whole process difficult, because the goal was a *global* policy).

I need to check whether this has changed recently in one of the other
regions.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299