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

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:35:23PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >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.
> 
> 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? 

If that enterprise is willing to pay RIPE fees for it, it would qualify.

> Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32.

If they are willing to undergo the necessary paperwork, and pay the
yearly fees, yes.

(Which is only different from today insofar as "today the enterprise
has to lie to RIPE [or be quite creative in their definition of 'customer']
to get the /32" - look at current allocations where people are wondering
how the critera could have been fulfilled)

> 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.

I'm wondering what your alternative proposal is, as you don't like the
200-customer rule either.

If you're worried about a landslide: let's put an (arbitrary) safety
margin in there "only 5000 prefixes are handed out, then we stop and
re-evaluate policy".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  71007  (66629)

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234