Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Dave Pratt wrote:
>
> > ps. In IPv4 until very recently just about anyone could get an allocation by
> > joining RIPE. IPv6 is *much* stricter - a reason for sticking with IPv4 ?
>
> It's very odd indeed, given that there is so much IPv6 address space
> and correspondingly little justification for tight management of that
> address space.

Please keep in mind that I for one don't want Joe Random's Own Little ISP,
for example, get a sTLA.  The whole point of tightly aggregated DFZ is
pointless if that would be the case.

Getting IPv6 address space, subTLA-level address space, should be way more
difficult than getting an IPv4 /29 delegation.

Let's not lose the meaning of sTLA; it's not (in my book at least) meant
for small ISP's.

Another question entirely is whether IXP's are "significant enough" in
this sense, and would this encourage small ISP's, which wouldn't normally
be allowed anywhere near a subTLA, found an _"_IXP_"_.

So.. Don't be stingy with address space with those that actually do
peering (other than tunnels!), but otherwise...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords