<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.5.6"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 11:17 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> Jeroen Massar wrote: >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote: > > >> 1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR. >> >>2) not be an End Site - OK we're not. >> >>3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs. >> >>4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already. >> >> > >According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are >simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment... > > Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Do these customers are LIR's because they have 200 customers themselves or because being LIR allows them to get some address space more easily? When they are endsites, that is having no other transits, they should be getting space from you and not themselves. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> - I am hardly an end site ? how do I get adresses under the current policy ? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> This is I assume indeed the scheme that Tim from Dante shows. And indeed this does not work under the current policy and as such that needs to be fixed.... 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? <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <PRE> </PRE> Propose a new/addition/change to the policy that specifies this specific case, bring it forward and let people vote. If for one see why, especially in business case, you want your own address space. For that matter a micro-policy would sort of be good, but the thing is..... how much routing entries will we end up with, again as much as with IPv4? <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful. </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Ack. Greets, Jeroen </BODY> </HTML>