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

On 21 Jun, 2004, at 17:00, Havard Eidnes wrote:

>> I really fail to see the reason behind the 200 other organisation
>> rule - perhaps someone would like to explain the logic.
>
> I think the logic is that the RIRs are trying to portion out routing
> space so that we don't get a global routing table explosion in IPv6 in
> the same way we have (had) in IPv4.  To acheive this, they need to make
> sure that the small ISPs don't get their own allocation,

If this is true, it is really disturbing given that the RIPE NCC was 
rather proactive some years ago when the whole TLA/NLA/SLA structure 
was conceived with the main objective of allowing only up to 8192 
players in the global routing table. Eventually everyone got to see the 
point of view championed by DFK that it would be undue regulation of 
the industry.

Now, like then, the arguments in favour of imposing this limitation 
where all to do with the current technical difficulties with coping 
with a huge routing table.

Also disturbing is that, while there are groups working on proposing 
new solutions to the multihoming problem, the policy seems to reflect a 
conviction that they will fail and therefore there need to be 
constraints imposed at a table size of a few hundred entries.

I would like to suggest that if the multihoming proposals fail, then 
the policy becomes irrelevant because so does IPv6. Therefore the 
policy ought to be as relaxed as possible to not preclude any possible 
growth at this stage.

>  but instead go
> to their upstream provider for an IPv6 address space delegation.  I
> can't really see another reason for this particular aspect of the
> policy.
>
Joao