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

On 4-apr-05, at 14:40, Gert Doering wrote:

>> 9. Summary of proposal:
>>   The proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria
>>   outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy"
>>   (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html). The proposed
>>   change is to remove "have a plan for making at least 200 /48
>>   assignments to other organisations within two years" and to

> I'm all for removing the 200-customer rule, as it's pointless,

The world would be an empty place after we remove everything that's 
pointless.

I would be much more interested in removing things that are harmful or 
get in the way. Can anyone show me some examples of networks that we 
can agree on deserve a PA block but don't get it because of the 200 
customer rule?

I'm not convinced this rule actually gets in the way in practice.

>>   remove the reference to "/48s" as the assignment size.

> This is a useful thing, even if people don't agree with it on the
> first glance (but those just need more coffee) :-)

Yes. Read the RFCs.

> I've read other comments that say "please do not remove it, because 
> ISPs
> will then start to assign /52, /62, and whatnots".  I think this 
> argument
> doesn't really hold, because *this* is *NOT* the place that specifies
> the rules for LIR->customer assignments (!!).

Ok so the policy isn't as beautiful as it can be. Who cares. The /48 
thing is a good reminder for ISPs that might otherwise import their 
existing v4 policies in IPv6.

>>    b. Arguments opposing the proposal
>>    With such a change in the policy, every LIR operating an autonomous
>>    network would be able to receive an IPv6 allocation. The worst
>>    case scenario would be a number of allocations equal to the number 
>> of
>>    LIRs in the RIPE region.

> The routing system can bear that.  (Yes, I hear you shouting, but I can
> count).  Go for it!

Where exactly is "number of LIRs in the RIPE region" defined as CONST ?

We already allow people to "buy" IPv4 address space like this, which is 
questionable. Doing the same for IPv6 is much more harmful as people 
will abuse this to get around the lack of IPv6 PI space. And whatever 
anyone's feelings about that, having people get PA blocks instead is 
NOT the solution.