Criteria for initial PA Allocation

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Dave Pratt wrote:

> Hiya all,
> 
> I agree completely with Gert.
> 
> Not everyone can have a globally routable address block just so they can be
> multihomed.
> 
> At the very least we need considerable obstacles to prevent everyone from
> trying to achieve this.
> 
> Either we must charge $ for this benefit (I dislike this option too), or we
> must make rules to prevent excessive growth in the routing table, or we can do
> as we have so far (make the process so complex that folks give up before they
> succeed !!!).

I think this is an excellent idea... number of peers could be a criteria,
but we would have to keep in mind some countries dimensions...
Here, having 20 peers is very good, but i think in .de or in .uk, that
number would indicate a "small AS", no ? 
This # of peers criteria would also give entities already with an ASN some
"control" about new ASNs... perhaps this would be against any anti-trust
law...

 
> The problem I see is agreeing on the rules to prevent excessive growth. Just
> deciding what is excessive growth is hard enough.

Yes, as i was saying... different countries, different dimensions... but
what we have seen here is that the market tends to regulate itself... some
ISPs will probably disappear or will be bought by bigger ones.

 
> When these rules are determined, in my view they also need applying
> identically to the IPv6 address space.

Sure. Doing otherwise would be a great mistake... i remember someone once
said... "640kb will be much more than we will ever need!" ;-)


 
> Cheers
> Dave


Regards,


./Carlos
                                                          "Networking is fun!"
-------------------
<cfriacas at fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup  http://www.fccn.pt
F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  fax: +351 218472167