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

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:26:08PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> And how does this scale going forward? I.e., when folk figure out that
> all they have to do to get their very own PI address space is join
> RIPE and pay the fee?

Yes.  This is how it works with IPv4 PA blocks right now (in RIPE land)
- and *these* blocks are *not* what's filling the routing tables with
150k routes, given that we have only a few thousand RIPE members.

> > 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".
> 
> So, we repeat the IPv4 experience where the early birds get a precious
> resource, while the late arrivers have to play under changed rules
> (that they view as being unfair)?
> 
> I thought one of the goals with IPv6 address policy was _NOT_ to
> repeat the mistakes of the past.

The only way to avoid *all* mistakes is to avoid giving anybody address
space at all.  There is no way to come up with a policy that decides
today who is "worthy" that will not be challenged by someone else in 
10 years.  Or next week.

Personally, I'd go for a handful of mistakes (and I'm willing to put 
enough RAM in my routers to handle 10.000 entries in the IPv6 BGP tables) 
if that means "we'll start making progress" - because if IPv6 isn't going 
to take up soon, it's dead.

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