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

> It's one thing to have a fall back plan to deal with unforeseen
> problems. It's quite another to recklessly move in a direction with
> significant long-term implications just because "we can always try
> again later".

I believe that the long term implications of growing the routing
table to avoid minor waste of IPv6 address space, are much more 
significant and worrying that the other way around. Or, to restate
it the other way around, if conserving IPv6 address space causes 
the global routing table to grow bigger (either in entries or bits)
then we risk creating problems that we do not know how to solve.

However, we do know how to solve the problem of wasting too much
IPv6 address space. We either extend 2000::/3 by one more bit,
or we transition to a different IPv6 addressing plan. 

> > This means that we should not be excessively concerned with
> > conserving address space or wasting addresses. It is entirely
> > appropriate to give a /32 to anyone who might be some sort
> > of an ISP, either traditional or some new type, like Google
> > or BMW or Cadburys.
> 
> And, do you have an estimate of how many such "ISPs" exist today, or
> will exist in 10-20 years? E.g., are we talking about 10,000 entities
> (not scary), or 1 million (scary to me).

The point that I am making is that the ISPs of today (and the future) 
do not necessarily follow the same business model as the ISPs of 
yesterday.
In the 1990's it was reasonable to define an ISP as an organization
that connects 200 or more customers. That is no longer reasonable and
it should be removed. If people are concerned about exponential demand
for /32s then the policy change can incorporate a limit and a review
period, i.e. no more than 3000 new /32's without reviewing this policy.

However, all of the "ISPs" that don't fit in the current model, have
something in common. They provide a service to many different physical
locations or to large numbers of users. Because of this, the number of
such "ISPs" will tend to be closer to 10,000 entities than to 1 million.
The 200 new customer limit was meant to be a measure of largeness and 
seriousness. I think that in today's world, that measure fails to do 
the job. However, the recurring RIPE fees, do continue to serve as 
a measurement of size and seriousness. Assuming that we have a process
for recovering IPv6 addresses from customers who cease to pay the 
recurring
fees, I don't see that there is a problem with simplifying the policy.

--Michael Dillon