[address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6

I fully agree, the 200 customers requirement should go away.

We are probably the last RIR doing so, funny :-(

There are lots of similar examples as the NATO one. It make no sense at all

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int>
> Organización: NATO C3 Agency
> Responder a: "address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net"
> <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:15:05 +0100
> Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6
> 
> Following up on the discussion during RIPE-51, I have not heard much
> discussion on "200 customer requirement for IPv6" rule. So I would like to
> hear your views on this.
> 
> During RIPE-51 the proposal to remove the rule caught serious objections. I
> can sympathise with those but I do have an issue that I'd like feedback on.
> 
> I am investigating how NATO should acquire IPv6 address space. NATO will use
> multiple transmission providers, NATO owned transmission and national
> networks. Also transmission contracts will have to be opened for bidding
> every few years. That makes requesting IP space from an ISP a non starter. So
> we explore the LIR route. Note that NATO has a service provider under its
> umbrella that provides service towards the other NATO organisations. They
> operate independently and are like an ISP (and more) for that matter. They
> are just not selling outside NATO.
> 
> At this time it is reasonably hard to specify the 200 /48 that will be given
> out for the "IPv6 Initial Allocation Request". Having reached about 130 or so
> on my list (not finished yet) I can't help wondering why RIPE-NCC should care
> about a list of sites that they only a vague clue of what they are and have
> no means of verification if the list is correct. Having said that, I get the
> feeling that the 200 rule only ads admin overhead and has limited actual
> power. Now NATO could include a summarised version in the Initial Allocation
> and do something like:
> 
> Subnet: /48 1 year  5 regional sites (/48 per site = 5x /48)
> Subnet: /48 1 year 20 subordinate sites to the 5 regional sites (/48 per site
> = 5x 20x /48 = 100 /48)
> Subnet: /48 2 year 40 deployed elements (/48 per site = 40x /48)
> Subnet: /48 2 year 70 Crisis Response Operation locations (/48 per location =
> 70 x /48)
> Total: 215x /48
> 
> Note that the numbers are fiction but they are not very unrealistic as we also
> need to include standby elements that are ready to go (power up, aim dish and
> run) systems. Although close to the truth, RIPE-NCC would have no way of
> verifying this and providing a detailed list would bury RIPE-NCC in details
> that they don't care about and also cannot verify.
> 
> I can't help feeling this rule is written for ISPs but will be counter
> productive for NATO and organisations with a very large privately operated
> enterprice network. I also can't help the feeling that its a paper tiger. So
> isn't there another way to achieve the same result as this rule was intended
> for?
> 
> Any views?
> 
> Marc
> -- 
> Marc van Selm
> NATO C3 Agency
> CIS Division
> E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
> 




************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.