[address-policy-wg] Re: how 200 /48's fails the job

On 7-apr-05, at 15:29, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> I am not a lawyer

[...]

> As policymakers, we have to be concerned with the legal
> environment around us, and therefore this limit must be
> removed.

This policy has been in use around the world for years and apparently 
nobody bothered to challenge it in court. So either nobody cares or the 
legality is just fine.

> There must be some technical justification
> for the request, such as the plan to run an IPv6 network
> that internetworks at least two IPv6 networks.

[...]

> I feel confident that giving out a /32 to
> any internetwork with plans to deploy IPv6 will not create
> a routing table crisis.

So being an internetwork gets you a /32, and you're an internetwork if 
you (inter)connect at least two "IPv6 networks".

Care to define "IPv6 network"? Would that be another organization (so 
200 becomes 2)? Or just a subnet (so 200 becomes 0)?

The trouble with all of this is that if we lower the bar so entities 
that we all feel should be able to have their own prefix can get one, 
this immediately opens the door for a whole bunch of other people who 
shouldn't.

For instance, we've seen some messages from different LINX people. 
Apparently they have a number of projects (the number being smaller 
than 200) that require IPv6 addresses and they would like to assign 
those addresses from a prefix of their own. Since internet exchanges 
already get a prefix for the exchange fabric it seems reasonable to 
give them a larger prefix than just one for the exchange fabric so they 
can accommodate these other assignments as well as their own stuff from 
this same prefix.

But what qualifies as an "internet exchange"? There are already many 
"internet exchanges" with members that can be comfortably counted on 
the fingers of one hand.

So rather than just remove the 200 limit and brag that we're so good at 
predicting the future that this will NEVER pose a problem, it would be 
good to come up with something that's actually BETTER than the current 
policy.

I'm still waiting for examples of PA requests that were turned down 
but, in our collective opinion, shouldn't have, BTW.

I was thinking about simply reusing the IPv6 policies and requiring 
applicants to show the need for a certain number of addresses. But the 
problem is that with IPv6 you can renumber thousands of hosts with a 
couple of lines of router configuration. What is exactly the 
circumstance that makes the difference between getting PA space from an 
ISP being just inconvenient, and being too problematic to reasonably 
ask people to do so?