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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>> Could you clarify, why do you think "200 customers" fails as a meter
>> for largeness ?
>
> Because it assumes that the LIRs applying for address space
> are following a traditional ISP model in which the customers
> of the LIR are being connected by the network. In the case
> of BMW it may be the factories, or it may be the repair centres.
> In the case of Google it may be some set of replicated server
> farms in many locations.

Do you consider BMW and Google ISPs?  Do you think they should be?

Note that at least according to some enterprises, folks also want to 
advertise more specifics from each of the network demarcation points 
they attack to -- not wanting to backhaul internal traffic through 
their internal network.  Giving such enteprises /32 furthers bloats 
the routing table with TE-induced more specifics.  For those 
enteprises, it might be better to have local-provider aggegatable 
addresses, which don't need these traffic engineering properties.

> But if there has to be a bar, then perhaps it could be restated
> as: "the LIR intends to allocate at least 200 /48 blocks within
> the next two years". On a commercial level, that still allows
> a new startup ISP who intends to offer IPv6-only network access,
> to get the addresses that they need for their business plan. But
> it also allows for all the existing IPv4 network operators, many
> of whom are not ISPs, to get IPv6 addresses to transition their
> networks.

The current policy (the relevant bits wrt your idea) is:

   c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which
       it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its
       single aggregated address allocation; and

    d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
       organisations within two years.

What you said, "the LIR intends to allocate at least 200 /48 blocks 
within the next two years" seems to be roughly equal to the above, 
except by removing the "other organizations" rule.

Was this the intent -- because the current policy already allows a /32 
to (if the other conditions are met) new ISPs which don't _yet_ have 
200 customers ?

Or did you mean something slightly different?

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