[address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 12:05 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote:
>On Wed, 2 March 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>[..]
>> The question boils down to:
>>  - do you require a entry in the routing table
>> or:
>>  - do you need address space
>> 
>> Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never
>> use it.
>> A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the
>> routing table?
>
>Cool. Then we as a transit provider have a problem. Well, we
>have a handful of customers with /48 and some /64, but that are
>not exactly that many... 80% of our v6 customers run BGP with
>their /48 or /32...

That is indeed a problem for such a setup. But this is a problem with
the policy and the thought behind the policy than with your setup :)
As such, these cases should be covered in the policy too.

But Tiscali already has a very well working IPv6 connectivity and I
assume that you also have the _plan_ of providing connectivity for more
than 200 customers at some point in the very distant future, so actually
it is not a big issue. But it is for some indeed :(

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- 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/20050302/843cc8f2/attachment.sig>