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

On 5-apr-05, at 14:40, Gert Doering 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*?

They make renumbering hard. Many people want PI so they don't have to 
renumber.

> 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")

How is this different from any other end-user?

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

I don't want no stinking /64. Give me a /48.

>  - 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...

Show me some examples. I started an ISP with ~30 customers once and I 
don't think there are very many of those. They all tend to gravitate 
towards 0 customers or > 30 customers over time.

> (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)

Daniel was talking about PI here. Are you saying the above examples 
should use PI rather than PA? Doesn't make much sense to me.