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

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:36:52AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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)?

Actually, since the current policy is in effect, this was the main sore
spot about it.  People being scared away due to misinterpretation, people
complaining about the "restrictive policy", and so on.  

Nobody (from the RIPE region) ever spoke in favour of it, as far as I
can remember...

> 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.

We would definitely need to clarify it "very much so".  Even then, I'm
not sure what good it does - a "normal" LIR that's serious about it will 
be able to come up with 200 prospective customers (if only by creative
definitions of "end site").  

The really problematic cases, like "big transport provider, most customers
bring their own address space anyway, so few (if any) direct assignments"
would still remain (NORDUnet comes to mind).

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