[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:02:19PM -0400, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> I'm not opposed to making IPv6 address space available to all the  
> networks that need it. I just think basing the policy for doing so on  
> a concept that is so slippery we can't really define it is fatally  
> flawed. If the net effect of your proposal would be that more than  
> 95% of members would qualify for a /32 allocation it is probably  
> simpler to just make the qualifying criterion being a RIPE NCC member.

Well.  Let's do a straw poll...

 "who is in favour of doing so?"

I think it would make sense, to have "full-weight" LIRs that automatically
get a /32-or-bigger allocation, and possibly "light-weight" RIPE "customers"
(to get the contractual stuff that is desired) that get a /48-or-so PI.

Just as a rough outline - details to be worked out.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279