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

[Andre Oppermann <]

Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
> 
> > There is NO WAY for large corporate and government entities to put them
> > at the mercy of any single random ISP again.  They've learned it the
> > hard way with IPv4 already and go exclusively with PI address space now.
> 
> Have you ever taken a look at the list of companies that already have an
> IPv6 allocation???
> 
> FYI: Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/
> 
> There seem to be quite a large number of 'corporations' which don't
> typically fit the ISP bill according to many people.

Sorry, I've gone through the list and looked for familiar non-ISP names
in the RIPE region and especially Germany/Switzerland.  I haven't found
any smoking gun with the exception of CH-KSZ-20050103 which clearly is
not even remotely an ISP.

For the APNIC region I don't see any obvious non-ISP entities but then
I'm not familiar with that region.  In the ARIN region I can find some
non-ISP entities but in no way a majority.  Most of the time they are
a corp and an ISP (Microsoft & MSN for example).

To summarize: From a coursory examination of the IPv6 allocation table
more than 95% appear to be bona fide ISP allocations without having
bent the rules.  My feeling is the number is even closer to 99% than 95%.

> Again: Fill in the forms and go to RIPE/ARIN/LACNIC/AFRINIC/APNIC.

That the problem, I can't.  I can't fill out a PI request for them and
send it under my LIR name to RIPE.  My friendly mega-corp customer would
have to be become a LIR themselfes.  While that is not that much of a
problem they don't fulfill the 200 external customer requirement.  They
don't have any external customers.  On top of it they are not the least
bit interested in becoming a LIR with all the associated procedures and
everything.  They don't go to LIR training courses.  It just makes the
life miserable for them and the poor RIPE hostmaster who have to deal
with their address requests.  While I'm glad to consult with mega-corp
it's not the way it should be.  The IPv4 PI way was better dealing with
this type of situation.

> If you are really too small, that is you have at most 10 sites, then you
> simply are too small.

This just rules out getting a /32.  It should not rule out getting
the ability to properly multihome or to be ISP independent.

> I still have not heared anybody getting rejected by RIPE, except for
> some home users wanting /32's over DSL and other silly stories.

I'd chances are high that you don't hear from them is because they
are not ISPs and thus don't have any connections to (our) ISP community.

-- 
Andre