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

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:13:59 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Savola wrote:
>Could you clarify, why do you think "200 customers" fails as a meter 
>for largeness ?
Pekka, just one question:

Do you really think big is good, small is bad, and just the
big ISP's will promote IPv6 ?

There is one point I don't understand in the whole discussion:
If every RIPE member get's an IPv6 prefix, which is true for IPv4,
we are talking about plus 10K prefixes in the table.

This is *nothing* compared to a single de-aggregation action
of clueless over-the-ocean ISP's which indeed happend
and is *proven* to be managable by the existing routers.

Thus *there is no technical reason at all* to keep the rule
and force smaller ISP's to promise "plans" that won't get
reality or put them as "second class" RIPE members into
some sort of dependency of an larger RIPE member.
There is also *enough* IPv6 address space,
the IPv6 was designed that way.

* I like clear words:

If there is no technical reason at all, could one of the promoters
of the 200 customers pseudo rule please explain the *true*
reasons for this "we simply don't like this" opposition.

I can't withhold my impression and disapointment that some
behind-the-wall "arguments" for this rule are just of
anti-competitive nature and that large ISP's simply
think they can force smaller ISP's into some sort of
dependency to keep the market clean in their sense ?!?

Do people *really* think this approach works and do they
really think that such an anti-competitive 200 customer policy
- does neither hit IPv6 and the idea behind it
- does not hit community
- will not be forced down by EU commission authorities ?!?

Sorry for this clear and open words.

Best Regards
Oliver



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0