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

Agree, let's go the 200 customers, but keep the /48. Otherwise in order to
be coherent, lets change RFC3177 also (which I will not agree).

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>
> Organización: Unfix
> Responder a: "address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net"
> <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:18:48 +0200
> Para: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen at tiscali.no>
> CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [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
>