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

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:17:21PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> The IETF has worked long and hard on multihoming without PI. It would 
> be superbly stupid to throw all of that away with the finish line in 
> sight and forever increase the cost of routing just so lazy people can 
> get away with hardcoding IPv6 addresses in their access lists.

I'm not sure how this ongoing discussion relates to *access lists*?

We're talking about networks like:

 - large-scale networks that have only BGP customers that already have
   their own address space (so "no 200 /48 given to customers")

 - 3GPP networks that assign /64s (so it's no "/48s" given to customers)

 - smallish ISPs that could be a good driver for new IPv6 products
   (because they are not old, rusty, and refusing anything new) but do
   not yet have 200 customers, but maybe 30 very large ones...

etc.

None of these can be helped with the end-user-multihoming solutions 
developed by the IETF (which are important, of course).

(In case you haven't noticed: there are a number of different policy
proposals being discussed in parallel.  Please put your attacks regarding
"access-list lazyness" into the correct discussion, wherever that might be)

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