Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fixIPv6

[Jeroen Massar <]

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

<SNIP>
> I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the 200 "customer"
> rule.  But that is just me...

A question which most likely only RIPE NCC can answer: has there ever
been a LIR who requested an IPv6 allocation and got rejected?

LIR's are usually already have 200+ customers, let alone in planning.

The people who are complaining (and not proposing what could be done) on
this list don't want to be an LIR in the first place.
Removing the 200 rule thus would not have much effect in all those cases.

Also, they are usually end-sites (eg companies) thus would not pass that
rule of the current policy. ISP's with less than 200 customers would
indeed. But does it make sense to assign a complete /32 to a company
that would not even allocate 200 /48's out of 65k in that /32?
Looks a lot like address waste to me. Indeed a /48 to a dailup is also
exactly that, for that matter out of my /48 I also only use one single
/64, as bridging is more convenient than routing, though I could make my
network using a couple of /64's if I wanted, but why should I? Now I can
move boxes around without having to renumber them, which I already did 3
times.

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>
> On 1 dec 2005, at 12.01, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> If you have alternative ideas you know how it works - send text.
>>
>> draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt
>>
>> same one the ietf has ignored and lied about for eight years now
>
> I am looking forward to the BOF....:-)

The BOF or the WAR? :) Kidding aside, the distribution of address space
doesn't have much to do with routing table size, which is where most
people seem to be concerned over.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature