Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers

[Hans Petter Holen <]

Jeroen Massar wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
>  
> > 1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR.
> >
> > 2) not be an End Site - OK we're not.
> >
> > 3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs.
> >
> > 4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already.
> >    
> According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are
> simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment...
>  
Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all 
beeing LIR on their own:
- I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or 
several depending on my size and definition of "up"
- I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs 
on their own
- I am hardly an end site ?

how do I get adresses under the current policy ?
If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ?

This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts 
limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful.

-hph