how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Tue Apr 5 22:13:59 CEST 2005
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > In the 1990's it was reasonable to define an ISP as an organization > that connects 200 or more customers. That is no longer reasonable and > it should be removed. [...] ... > The 200 new customer limit was meant to be a measure of largeness and > seriousness. I think that in today's world, that measure fails to do > the job. Could you clarify, why do you think "200 customers" fails as a meter for largeness ? There are some odder cases like transit only ISPs (which technically could only have very few direct organizational customers -- let's assume that those would get the IP space using some other provisions or as a matter of interpretation), but apart from that, why exactly is requiring 200 customers unreasonable? Are you referring to e.g., webhosting ISPs which don't have end-users (dialup, DSL, etc.) customers ? What do you think would be a reasonable bar then? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]