Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

[Tim Streater <tim.streater@localhost]

At 20:54 07/06/2006, David Conrad wrote:
> Jordi,
>
> Unlurking from the sidelines and speaking only for myself, some
> comments on your proposal:
>
> > It is clear that there are small Internet Service providers (ISPs)
> > that do not currently have 200 customers, consequently is not
> > feasible for them to make "at least 200 /48" assignments in two
> > years. It is, however, unfair that these ISPs have no access to
> > IPv6 address space.
> I'm confused.  According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the existing
> policy doesn't require requesters to have 200 customers.  All that it
> requires is that an LIR not be an end site, provide IPv6
> connectivity, and "have a plan for making at least 200 /48
> assignments to other organisations within two years."
>
> Note it says "a plan".  An organization incapable of coming up with
> _a plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant problems than not
> having IPv6 space.
We manage transit networks. We need v6 address space to address our backbones. We expect the allocation to be routed so we could outsource the management of the backbone to some distant entity. All our customers are LIRs and therefore need no space from 
us. We therefore, in reality, expect to allocate no addresses to no customers in the next two years.
I could put together a plan contradicting this fact, but it would be a lie. Why should I lie to the RIR in order to get obtain space?


-- Tim