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

[Pekka Savola pekkas@localhost]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Tim Streater wrote:
[...]
> Notwithstanding this, there is some pressure in the research 
> community for v6 to be available. And this translates downwards, at 
> least for me, into a requirement to get some PI v6 space for a 
> transit network.
> IPv6 is supposed to be an available and operational service, in 
> which case the policy should cover all reasonable requirements. If 
> it is not the case (i.e., not an operational or available service), 
> but is still considered to be under development, not yet needed to 
> be deployed, might need to be changed to introduce geographical 
> addressing, or whatever else, then presumably this needs to be made 
> evident and debated in a different forum.
I'm not sure how constructive this particular thread is.  Transit 
networks are a simple case to deal in the policy.  You could, for 
example, specify that if an ISP provides transit to other 
organizations which qualify (or have already qualified) for an 
allocation of their own, the transit network could also get an 
allocation.  This has de-facto way the policy has been implemented 
already.
It's the other parts of the policy that are trickier to address in an 
acceptable manner.  Either we should focus the discussion on them (oh 
no, not again! :) or create a very specific policy amendment proposal 
that addresses the specific transit-only ISP case only.
--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings