Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: a consensus, about what?

[David Kessens <]

Gert,

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:38:40PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > As an example, I don't believe we can justify that a very large entity
> > has (perceived) difficulties in obtaining ipv6 addresses while a tiny
> > ISP that has plans for 200 customers but doesn't quite have that many
> > customers yet and in total has less users than the large entity will
> > get a /32 without any problem.
> > 
> > Basically, we don't need additional policies, we need a modification
> > of the current policy to make sure that users of address space of
> > similar size will get and can get similar sized blocks of address space.
> 
> Partly I agree, and to some extent I disagree - the *size* of the block
> isn't what people seem to be worrying about.  The sheer fact that someone
> can get (or not) an "independent BGP routing table slot" - which is always
> "one", no matter how big the network is - seems to be.
> 
> Starting to hand out different sizes might lead people to connecting
> "importance" to "network size", which would be a wrong signal.

I didn't say that sizes have to be different. I said that an
organization with X number of users should get a similar amount of
address space as another organization that has X number of users
whether it is an ISP or not.

As it is however, we currently do give out different sizes as a /32 is
the minimum.

My personal opinion is that we should keep this minimum as is if we
decide to only give out address space to organizations with a very
large number of users. My opinion is different if it is decided that
organizations with a fairly small numbers of users can get address space
directly from the RIPE NCC. A /32 is already extremely generous and at
some point it just gets completely ridiculous.

David Kessens
---