[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 06:57 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

<SNIP>

> 11. Rationale:
>     a. Arguments supporting the proposal
>     Many LIRs' networks do not have 200 customers to make assignments 
>     to but still maintain autonomous network and addressing policies. 
>     These require address space that is both aggregatable and independent
>     from that of their peers. In addition, a /48 assignment is not 
>     always appropriate; ISPs might have different plans for the size 
>     of the assignments they will make and the policy should not stand 
>     as an obstacle for them. Such a change in the policy will also make 
>     IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration 
>     of IPv6 development. 

The 200 thing can go indeed. The /48, which is the minimum assignment
towards that endsite must stay. Otherwise there will be ISP's who are
going to give out /56's, /58's, /60's, /62's etc.

The reason for the _minimum_ of a /48 is that when you want to change
over to another ISP that you can get the equally sized /48.
Or do you want to get, say, 3 IPv6's IP's from your upstream ISP?

If you are so extremely big that you need multiple /48's (which contain
65k /64's as you will know) you are also more than capable of getting
your own TLA under the new proposed #gamma policy, and most people will
most likely going to just that for a large amount of reasons, especially
because they simply want 'an entry in the routing table'...

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20050404/9c80638b/attachment.sig>