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

>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.

  Now we are getting closer to the real stuff: nobody in RIPE-Land has
  ever been able to agree on the definition of "ISP", much less on a
  definition of "customer" or "organisation" or "site".

>However, I still think that the plan for 200 sites within 2 years is
>not necessary at this point in time.

  It is not even useful or helpful, because the entities which should
  count up to the magical number 200, eventually, are of different make
  and model and lifespan.

  If you look at the "traditional mass-market ISP", having 200 customers
  is zilch. Private homes, SOHO stuff, and so on.

  Looking at e.g. a research network, a "customer" or "site" is something
  like Vienna University. Till recently (before the medical faculty was
  split off, I don't have the curent figures at hand) this site was
  serving some 60K+ students plus 6..7K facutly on the campus.

  The whole LAN serving that community on-site can live comfortably within
  a *single* /48 (yes we do have an addressing plan and our backbone is
  dual-stack :-). But, there are "slightly" less than 200 universities in
  our country...

  Looking at the regional school districts (9 of them, aligned with the
  federal states), they _could_ be run as a single site within a /48 each,
  and from our point of view, as a single "customer" (again 9 << 200) -
  or they can be treated as separate schools (=sites) leaving us with a
  couple of thousands to add to the tally :-).

  It all depends on the *operational model*, the connection technology,
  and the contractual relationships.

  Bottom line: 200 is just as good or useless as a "measure" for size of
  an operator, or its importance, determination to introduce IPv6, or the
  size of a user community served - as is 0, 5, 10, 100 or 20K.

  And, btw, I was involved in trying to align the evolving regional IPv6
  policies across the regions: the magical mistery number "200" is merely
  a result of social engineering, and not a result of technical or scaling
  deliberations. The proposals we had on the table at that time were
  between "0" and a couple of "thousands".

> If only we had a clearer definition
>of a network

  How about:

  Some transmission equipment and physiacal channel, with more than 1
  attachment point, serving some functional gadet, which require a unique
  identification and agreeing on the use of a common set of communication
  rules. those ruleswhich include using those unique identifiers on more
  than 1 of the attachment points.

> and an internetwork.

  More than 1 operational domain with a "network", interconnected on at
  least 1, probably more, points using an "interconnection network" to
  provide and operate the exchange of information.

> I would probably say something like:
>"Any organization planning to operate an IPv6 internetwork connecting
>two or more physically discontiguous locations...".

  You might have fun coming up with a definiton of "physically
  discontiguous locations...", but that's a diferent exercise :-)

>--Michael Dillon

  Wilfried.