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

> 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.

If RIPE really and truly believes that IPv6 will become
the future core protocol of the public Internet, then RIPE
should allocate an IPv6 /32 to every RIPE member who has
PI addresses.

But that is seperate from the question of new entrants who
may, or may not, be following an ISP business model.

> 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 ?!?

If you want to discuss anti-competitive rules, then how
about the 80% threshold which fails to recognize the
technical realities of IPv4 subnetting which means that
large networks can never be as efficient as smaller ones.
But that is being addressed by the HD-Ratio proposal.

--Michael Dillon