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

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
> At 19:25 07/04/2005, Gert Doering wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:22:49PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >> as stealth PI) I'm keeping an open mind. Still, just repeating "200 is 
> >> a problem" to eachother doesn't help, we need to know where the 200 
> >> limit gets in the way in the real world.
> >
> >People are not making IPv6 allocation requests because they assume that
> >they won't have 200 active IPv6 customers in two years time.
> >
> >Those that *do* make requests usually find a way to word their "plan"
> >in a way that the request is granted, but a fair number of smaller ISPs
> >have told me that they didn't send in a request at all, due to not
> >wishing to tell lies.
> 
> We are probably in this camp. We manage two transit networks,
> one of which is intended to manage itself in 2-3 years.
> I was able to get PI v4 space to address its PoPs, but the existing
> policies won't allow me to do the same for v6, so no point in applying.

Question, do you need:
 * Globally Unique Address Space
or:
 * Globally Unique Address Space that is meant to
   be in the global routing tables(*1).

> Or does a transit network count as an exchange?

IMHO, one can see it indeed as an exchange, in which case you will get
the first option from the above question. But as it is a IX block it is
not supposed to be in the routing tables as a single /48 and thus might
not be globally routed.

Greets,
 Jeroen

(*1) because for eg a /48 there is no aggregate that would lead it to be
sent to your box.
Global Routing tables = a prefix which is available in most networks.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20050414/3c6fa075/attachment.sig>