[address-policy-wg] Re: how 200 /48's fails the job

--On 07 April 2005 15:59 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
wrote:
> I'm still waiting for examples of PA requests that were turned down but,
> in our collective opinion, shouldn't have, BTW.

For what reason? If we dive into specifics, all we will end up doing is
"legislating" for (and wasting time over) corner cases.

Maybe there aren't any requests which have been rejected, because most
people who would be at risk of being turned down either, read the initial
allocation criteria, and either:

a) Realise they won't make the "200 number", don't bother applying, or,
b) Realise they won't make the "200 number", fabricate/lie/whatever on
their application and get the /32.

Can the NCC help by supplying some general statistics on IPv6 allocations
(such as number rejected, and for what reason)? 

I seem to recall that we only seem to hear about successful allocations
made in the NCC reports. The number of rejections would probably make far
more interesting reading/viewing.

I think we had a show of hands in Manchester along similar lines, showing
that there was some frustrated demand from networks which clearly weren't
end sites but were also not prepared to fabricate their v6 requests.

Maybe this will help us better understand the scale of the "problem".

Mike
-- 
Mike Hughes     Chief Technical Officer  London Internet Exchange
mike at linx.net   http://www.linx.net/
     "Only one thing in life is certain: init is Process #1"