Re: [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Thomas Narten <]

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Tim Streater wrote:
> > The other network is one we are *currently* managing, EUMEDCONNECT. 
> > It is for the Middle-eastern and North African NRENs. The intention 
> > here is that we expect these NRENs to set up their own entity to 
> > manage it, and go their own way, in which case we gift them the 
> > infrastructure, which in this case has to include the address space. 
> > We can do that for v4 as I got PI space for that. Its v6 that is the 
> > problem.

> Did you actually *try* getting a separate /32 for this?

> RIPE NCC is known to be very reasonable towards transit networks, and 
> I could bet good money you could get an allocation without a hitch.

I don't think  the Right Answer is always to say "did you try and did
you get rejected"?

I believe the current IPv6 policies are aimed at LIRs that delegate
address space to other users/isps/customers (i.e., that is the group
the are the main focus).

It is not immediately clear to me what the policies are (or should be)
for an ISP doing transit. Clearly, the don't need a full /32, since
they aren't really assigning (directly, or via delegation) lots of
addresses. But shouldn't they be able to get space?

Seems like that is a valid policy discussion to have.

Thomas