how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> 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. [...]
...
> 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.

Could you clarify, why do you think "200 customers" fails as a meter 
for largeness ?

There are some odder cases like transit only ISPs (which technically 
could only have very few direct organizational customers -- let's 
assume that those would get the IP space using some other provisions 
or as a matter of interpretation), but apart from that, why exactly is 
requiring 200 customers unreasonable?

Are you referring to e.g., webhosting ISPs which don't have end-users 
(dialup, DSL, etc.) customers ?

What do you think would be a reasonable bar then?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings