[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

Gert Doering <gert at space.net> writes:

> Hi,

> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:35:23PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >Yes.  But how much harm can it do?  This organization would eat up about
> > >1/4294967296 of the address space, and pay a yearly fee to RIPE to
> > >be permitted to keep it.  Sounds like a fair deal to me.
> > 
> > I don't think I agree here.  So, 1-man consulting companies, providing 
> > web hosting for one customer could fulfill the criteria for a /32? 

> If that enterprise is willing to pay RIPE fees for it, it would qualify.

> > Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32.

> If they are willing to undergo the necessary paperwork, and pay the
> yearly fees, yes.

And how does this scale going forward? I.e., when folk figure out that
all they have to do to get their very own PI address space is join
RIPE and pay the fee?

> If you're worried about a landslide: let's put an (arbitrary) safety
> margin in there "only 5000 prefixes are handed out, then we stop and
> re-evaluate policy".

So, we repeat the IPv4 experience where the early birds get a precious
resource, while the late arrivers have to play under changed rules
(that they view as being unfair)?

I thought one of the goals with IPv6 address policy was _NOT_ to
repeat the mistakes of the past.

Thomas