[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:53:27AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > The 200 /48s rule does fail the job, in the present
> > environment. We should abolish it for the arbitrary, plucked from
> > the air number, that it is.
> 
> care to do some plucking?
> 

Surely 'more than 1' should suffice? The air it comes from may be
unusually logical, but since one of the main arguments AGAINST changing
the policy seems to come down to a fear of making allocations to
'end-sites', then (assuming we can agree on it) the simplest resolution
is to rely on the definition of an end-site for our answer.

Taking a step back to a more general observation, I don't see how the
proposed changes open the gates (flood-bearing or otherwise) for
end-site allocations any wider than they already are..  If we're going
to look at things so simplistically then I guess the only potential
'problem' I see is that smaller LIRs (in a world where size is
apparently judged on a scale where the size of an ISP is exactly
proportional to its customer headcount) will find themselves able to get
an allocation so they can (gasp!) start making Serious v6 service
offerings...

...and wouldn't that suck?

Andy

-- 
Andy Furnell <andy at linx.net>		      Mob: +44 (0) 7909 680019
London Internet Exchange                           http://www.linx.net