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

Jon,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:53:00PM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> On Friday 25 June 2004 22:12, David Kessens wrote:
> > The policy is very clear: 'you need a plan to have 200 customers'. 
> 
> That's the whole point. The policy says *plan* to make 200 /48 assignments to 
> other organisations within two years.
> What's the point in that ? anyone can *plan* to make 200 assignments.

The point was to have a slight barrier to make sure that only people
that had a serious intent to deploy ipv6 networks would apply for
addresses. As such, it actually worked and it was not too big of a
hurdle for people who wish to deploy ipv6 either, although admittedly,
it should be noted that at least some people seem to have trouble
understanding the difference between a 'plan' and actually having 200
customers.

This was at the time a compromise between the different regions and
the most liberal rule that was acceptable for all regions. The
alternative was to keep the old policy and I am pretty sure that you
would like that one even less. From that point of view, it made a lot
of sense for the RIPE region to accept this rule because it was better
then what we had before.

Let's not waste any more time on the '200 customer' rule. The reasons
for it's existence are not there anymore. I was just trying to give a
bit of background information why this rule existe and what it was
designed for.

Now that the other regions seem to depart from this policy and apply
policies that are more liberal but also divergent from each other, it
seems that there is unfortunately no reason any longer to aim for a
global policy. The regional registries seem to be unwilling to support
a process where we started to develop such policies on a global level
through a bottom-up process. We tried for the ipv6 policies with a
global maillist and it failed. This is a serious problem inherent with
the regional setup that just doesn't make a lot of sense for resources
that need global management. One day this is going to cause
interesting problems. The system as it is setup today is working as a
never ending escalation of liberalizing the rules without any regard
for the reality that all those prefixes are going to end up in one
global routing table.

David Kessens
---