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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



	Gert,

>>> *One* person is taking major offence at not being allowed to play 
>>> with
>>> the big boys.
>>
>> Condescension will get us nowhere. Ok, we're a small ISP in a small 
>> market.
>> Since we aim at the business/leased line market only, we may not have 
>> 200
>> customers, let alone 200 IPv6 allocations, within 2 years (I hope to 
>> be
>> wrong, of course).
>> Give me *one* good reason why we shouldn't be allowed to offer IPv6
>> connectivity? Give me a reason why we should lose *one*, otherwise 
>> happy,
>> customer because of an arbitrary "line in the sand"?
>
> 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).

This doesn't fly. He can't set his own routing policy and he can't 
multihome. If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to 
renumber.

> So shall we abandon it?

Yes.

>  In favour of *what* to replace it?

RIR membership.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNfHOqarNKXTPFCVEQKtOQCg1zOZF0IUfjui3Vdgzf2A/f4HWZIAn1gC
8JG8Zg7yMx6efCwdGb8OpZoy
=PTYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----