This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Jun 25 08:32:31 CEST 2004
Hi Pekka, Sorry, but I can't agree with this. I provided the example of small ISPs, that have less than 200 customers for IPv4. So are we limiting those small ISPs (that may have a complete own infrastructure, even international peerings/links, etc.) and their customers from using IPv6 ? Some of this small ISPs survive because they provide service to a reduced set of companies, but BIG companies ... So the size of the ISP doesn't mean necessarily that the addressing space they may need is not big ! Just look to other RIRs ... Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas at netcore.fi> To: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> Cc: "Laura Cobley" <laura at ripe.net>; <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Gert Doering wrote: > > - try to come up with new rules for the allocation criteria, dropping > > the 200-assignments part, and integrate whatever is necessary to > > balance the remainder. > > Wasn't pretty much all of this (except one comment) based on the > misconception that you'd actually have to have 200 IPv6 customers, not > that you would have *potential* IPv6 customers (i.e: v4 customers, and > you willing to give them service)? > > So I don't think there was such a strong need for removeing the rule, > just if we clarified it sufficiently so that people would not (again!) > interpret it too strongly. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]