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

pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) wrote:

> >Do you really think big is good, small is bad, and just the
> >big ISP's will promote IPv6 ? [...]
> 
> Why do you think you require a /32 to "promote IPv6".  Don't answer.. 
> it was a rhetoric question :)

I'm not sure whether you've gotten notice of the issue not being
the size, but access to a prefix _at all_. Your sarcasm seems out
of place...


> My own, small consulting company (with dozens of customers) can 
> certainly promote v6, but I have no delusions of grandeour that it 
> would be best from the global perspective to allow such or even larger 
> companies, whether calling themselves ISPs or not, to obtain a /32.

Would you - if I may ask - believe "such or even larger companies"
to be eligible for an independently routable prefix at all, or,
more clearly spoken, eligible for a slot int the global routing table?

Under what circumstances would your idea of eligibility change?

Elmar.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---