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

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

No and no. I also don't think that this is relevant to RIPE
policies. There was a time when virtually all IP network
operators were ISPs and ISPs were distinct and separate
from telecoms companies. Now, most ISPs are telecoms
companies, but virtually all companies in Europe operate
an IP network of some sort. RIPE should be concerned with
all operators of large IP networks, whether or not their
business model is that of an ISP or something else. The
technology of IP networking requires IP addresses. Once
a company has the need to interconnect IP networks, they
also have a legitimate need for globally unique IP addresses.
That is where RIPE comes in. It doesn't matter whether this
is a company, like mine, which operates a parallel internetwork
separate from the Internet, or whether it is a company which
operates their own IP extranet infrastructure, or whether it
is a large multi-location company operating their own IP
intranet. If they need globally unique IP addresses, they
come to RIPE and RIPE policies must be fair to all of them.
RIPE must not be seen to be a cabal of ISPs trying to impose
a certain business model through anti-competitive policies.

This is all the more important with IPv6 because real-world
political organizations are taking notice and talking about
becoming involved. As long as RIPE stays current with the
realities of today, not the dreams of yesterday, then there
will be no problems. I believe that RIPE can evolve its policies
so that there is no need for the EU or ITU to become involved
in IPv6 addressing. But evolution is required.

> 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.

If an enterprise desires that type of traffic flow then it would
be a mistake for them to get a PI allocation. If there is a real danger
that people will make this mistake, then RIPE could publish
educational material about how different addressing scenarios
affect traffic engineering, failover, etc.

>    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 ?

If you remove "to other organisations" from d) and also reword c) so that
it refers to something other than organisations (sites?) then I think
the policy will be much fairer.

However, I still think that the plan for 200 sites within 2 years is
not necessary at this point in time. If only we had a clearer definition
of a network and an internetwork. I would probably say something like:
"Any organization planning to operate an IPv6 internetwork connecting
two or more physically discontiguous locations...". 

--Michael Dillon