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

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:13:20PM +0200, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>> I guess that it may make sense to define a time frame here... i mean,
>> an organization planning to provide IPv6 connectivity in 20 years would
>> qualify here?
>
> Yes.  But how much harm can it do?  This organization would eat up about
> 1/4294967296 of the address space, and pay a yearly fee to RIPE to
> be permitted to keep it.  Sounds like a fair deal to me.
>
> If the address space is allocated and doesn't even end up in the routing
> tables, even better.

I don't think I agree here.  So, 1-man consulting companies, providing 
web hosting for one customer could fulfill the criteria for a /32? 
Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32.

Doesn't look like a good idea at all.  While I agree that the "200 
customers" rule could maybe use a bit of improvement, I don't think 
removing it completely is the right fix at all.

So, I'm opposed to the policy change.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings