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

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 09:54:59AM +0200, Joao Damas wrote:
> 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 
[..]

The "200 user" criteria came from the ARIN and APNIC communities, not
from the RIRs.

[..]
> 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 can't see the connection.  The whole point of the multi6 group is
to find multihoming solutions that do *not* need a global routing table 
slot.

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