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

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Gert Doering wrote:
> [..]
>> 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.
>
> The outline sounds good to me, you have my support (though of course
> show details first ;).

My support to. Could maybe make it as easy as to have different fee and 
some too strict definition of what is full and light.
full = can justify /32 with /200 customers (yeah I know it's that 200 
rule...)
light = everyone else, even if you can justify a /32... the fee atleast 
50% lower than the above.



> And it is *MUCH* better than the current proposals which are simply
> going to waste address space.
>
> It is then also very simple "become member, pay fees, justify space
> requirement, get it, done presto"
>
> Also that avoids any need for ULA-C as everybody is covered.
> Now if only the rest of the RIR community was able to understand that point.


we'll get there after a while:)



-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------