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

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:44:23AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist 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).
> 
> 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.

As of today, "more-specific BGP multihoming" works.  So he *can* set
his own routing policy.

Admittedly, if changing the upstream, his customers would need to be
renumbered (but this is not too different from IPv4 today with 
"very small ISPs that do not want to become LIR" - they use upstream
space for a couple of years, and eventually become LIR and have to
renumber).

I can see that people don't like it, I'm just mentioning that it *could*
be done.  We will need to do something like that for the class "is ISP
but is not LIR", even if we abandon the 200-users rule.

> > So shall we abandon it?
> Yes.
> 
> >  In favour of *what* to replace it?
> RIR membership.

I'm still waiting for someone to yell "WE MUST KEEP THIS RULE!!!"... :-)

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