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

At 12:51 14/04/2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>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.

It does need to be globally routeable. Our customer networks may have access to some of our infrastructure items. Now, they could make a hole in their policy and accept a /48, but exceptions are best avoided. In addition, we may host our web-servers at a PoP, and occasionally host third-party workstations at PoPs when we collaborate with the third parties on research projects.

Cheers, 

-- Tim