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

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:40:26PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why this "/48 assignment" stuff from the criteria needs to
> removed is that it doesn't make sense.  The policy explicitely specifies
> that it's *fine* to assign /64s to certain categories of end users
> (5.4.1), but 5.1.1 says "but if you do that, you will not get address
> space to do it".  Who is bitten by this is the 3GPP people, because
> they are planning only /64s - and if we have a policy that says "the
> only real driver for IPv6 isn't going to get addresses", that policy
> is dumb.
> 
<snip>
> 
> >    c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and
> >    customers to which it will make assignments by advertising that 
> >    connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.
> 
> I'd opt for:
> 
>     c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and
>     customers to which it will make assignments _according to the 
>     rules specified in section 5.4.1_, and will advertise that 
>     connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.
> 
> just to make it clear that this change doesn't mean "/60s are fine now".
 
Exactly. 5.4.1 and RFC3177 are important for the sake of maintaining a
coherent assignment policy, but the size of the assignments an LIR/ISP
is planning on making (which we very much hope will be picked from the
/48 /64 or /128 bucket as per that policy) should not impact their 
ability to obtain an allocation in the first place...

Andy

-- 
Andy Furnell <andy at linx.net>		      Mob: +44 (0) 7909 680019
London Internet Exchange                           http://www.linx.net