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:

> >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?
> 
> They should never be in the global routing table.

You are a modest person. I feel the same about our "home network", btw.;
but that's because I trust my transit providers and I know how to renumber,
should the need arise.


> Getting 200 real customers is one acceptable circumtance.

I believe the "200" poses a problem for most of the typical early adopters,
who are not among the Tier 1 folks, but in Tiers 2 and 3 (if you think in
tiered terms).

And of course, that still doesn't solve the "crucial end site" problems,
which anyway are not the issue in this thread.

I favour v6 PI, but anybodies mileage may vary.

Elmar.

--

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

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