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

On Friday 25 June 2004 08:59, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> But I think the whole point of the discussion is that the rule is pretty
> pointless.
>
I agree.
Saying that we *plan* to make IPv6 available to 200 end sites within 2 years 
is pretty easy. The fact that we currently have no where near 200 end sites 
could be viewed as irrelevant as far as planniing is concerned.
This in my view makes a joke of the rule. Even a brand new LIR with only half 
a dozen end sites at present could easily present a case for *planning* to 
have 200 over the next 2 years.

It was suggested that if you don't/can't reach the 200 rule then you should 
take address space from your upstream. How many datacenters are going to be 
willing to do that. We'd like to be able to start offering IPv6 services for 
our datacenter, there's no way we're going to take a single upstream. A 
datacenter needs to be multihomed with different providers (at least in my 
opinion). I suppose I could assign a /48 to each customer in the datacenter 
(to reach the magic 200)  but most customers have only *one* server, so that 
would be a big waste of space. Instead I'd simply assign a single /48 to the 
datacenter and that would be aggregated by us on our multiple links, but by 
doing this we'd never reach 200 end sites.

I personally think we should get rid of the 200 rule completely.
Saying something along the lines of:
An LIR should provide IPv6 services (to end user sites) and advertise an 
aggregated route within 12 months of receiving the allocation.

Regards,
Jon