[address-policy-wg] IPv6 policy of making 200 /48 assignments

Tim Streater wrote:

> We're an LIR, and an ISP, but we don't fit into the nice hierarchical 
> tree that everyone assumes exists. For v4 we have an essentially 
> similar problem. 

This is actually quite interesting. From the historical point of view my 
understanding is that the IPv6 designers in the IETF tried to enforce a 
very strict hierarcy in IPv6. The reasons for this was of course to 
limit the global routing table.

This is similar to my understanding of the IPv4 policies in the ARIN 
region where you need to document a need for addresses. We tried that 
for a while in the RIPE region too - but removed this criteria again.

In IPv6 the requirement for having plans to have 200 customers exists as 
a global compromize to make the policy acceptable in alll regions - its 
was a regiaonaly approved policy - but globaly coordinated.

Now we are facing a review of this policy - some changes has already 
been made in some regions - and the question is

1) Should we change this criteria - if so - what should the new criteria 
be - if any at all ? (why should v4 and v6 policy differ)

2) What would the (global) consequences be of such a change ? (the 
policy will not be globaly coordinated any more, what about routing 
table implications ?)

-hph