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

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Cameron Gray (RIPE Address Policy WG) wrote:
> 
>>Or are we lobbying for the criteria as a LIR to be relaxed...?
> 
> 
> Actually there are no big hurdles for becoming a LIR.  Prove your existance,
> fill in paperwork, pay startup fee, done.

I think my phrasing was misunderstood.  What I meant was the 200 rule,
not to become a de facto LIR.

> This alone doesn't give you an IPv6 allocation yet, though - the biggest
> hurdle there is that you have to claim a plan to supply 200 customers with
> IPv6.   As it is only a *plan*, it's possible to achieve for most LIRs
> that actually provide addresses to customers.

Well not if we're sticking to the letter of the policy, and especially
as in perticular *our* customers will require multi-homing, therefore a
/32 to themselves...  (this is a YMMV comment, but asbestos underwear
donned anyway).


> OTOH, there's an ongoing policy change proposal to drop the 200-customer
> rule.  Please read up the specifics of the proposal in the archive, and 
> voice your opinion...

I disagree with the policy change, I think that the policy change should
be on allowed prefixed into the backbone.

First a little background, recently in the London Webhosting world, a
big drive has occured to become multi-homed and isolated from any one
providers screwups, downtime, incompetence, etc.  The problem with this
is that very few of them have any of the necessary skills to liase with
the NCC to do requests or even understand why its necessary [tangent:
the number of times I see "because ARIN gave us a /24 per box" as a
justification from the same group is silly].  I firmly believe in
leaving the important things to those who know what they are doing,
present company (I hope ;)).

The small providers can have either IPv6 PI (currently disallowed and
frowned upon) or become a LIR and wreak havoc on the hostmasters.

I'm against dishing out /32s to Joe Blogs because I believe the subnet
recommendation/guidelines as published are a good balance.  In theory a
/48 for any customer site should be several orders of magnitude to many
for most customers in two years.

But the ongoing problem is that of what should be allowed into the
public v6 Internet.

As much as I would like to attend RIPE 50 I have other commitments as
well as government to select half-way through so I am unable to.  Could
we continue the discussion here or is this very much an in person topic?

-- 

Best regards,

Cameron Gray
Director, Netegral Limited
www.netegral.co.uk | cgray at netegral.co.uk
0871 277 NTGL (6845)