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

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 15:52, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Non-attributed person wrote:
> >> There may however be places where such cooperation is appropriate, in
> >> which case RIR-policies should accomodate such a construct. ISP's who
> >> want such cooperation should probably establish an independent
> >> organisation that would act as the LIR for their region. There's nothing
> >> (exept possibly the 200 customer limit) in the current RIR-policy that
> >> prevents such a construct.
> >
> > As has been repeatedly pointed out by others, the 200 customer
> > limit is a REAL block to deployment of IPv6 by many companies.
>
> Which companies? According to the stats* Leo gave only 6 requests where
> ever denied based on this. Can these companies please come forward and
> explain what they exactly want?

NATO is one org that could impacted. We plan to work around it but it depends 
on the definition of an "organization" and "customers". If one considers NATO 
as an organization (and not a alliance of organizations and nations), then 
NATO will not have any customers. But NATO has a large privately operated 
network that uses many ISPs and telcos for transmission services. Contracts 
have to be rebid on a regular basis. So requesting IP space from an ISP is a 
configuration stability issue that we don't like. Only for that reason 
allone, NATO "needs" to "own" a block of IP space not "owned" by a ISP.

Now NATO can work around the 200-rule because NATO has its own service 
provider and we decided to consider NATO as an alliance of organizations. 
That is actually how NATO works so it is not bending the truth at all. So 
there are 200+ customers. But it is a bit artificial. I don't expect RIPE 
will reject a request but it illustrates the hoops that a large org with a 
large network that is part of their strategic assets will have to go through. 
OK one can just get space from an ISP but that effectively gives ISP lock-in 
as one does not want to reconfigure the core assets just for a contract 
rebid.

Again, I think we have a solid work around but looking at the controversy that 
this discussion has caused, a non ISP-centric policy would be useful.

Best regards, Marc
-- 
Marc van Selm
NATO C3 Agency
CIS Division
E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
This mail is not stating NATO policy but must be considered as informal 
exchange of views.