Re: proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure

[Frank Hoffmeister <]

> >  To: JOIN Project Team join@localhost
> >, lir-wg@localhost,
> >          Frank Hoffmeister <Frank.Hoffmeister@localhost,
> >          ipv6@localhost, Juergen Rauschenbach jrau@localhost
> >  Subject: Re: proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure
> >  From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost
> >  Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:01:56 +0100
> >
> >    > JOIN Project Team join@localhost writes:
> >    > > Can you provide a rationale for grouping providers by country.
> >    > > It strikes me as contrary to both aggregation and conservation goals
> >    >
> >    > We assume that ISPs will mainly offer their service within one country
.
> >
> >  This is not necessarily a valid assumption.
> 
> IBM offers Internet services in most European countries. It is not valid
> to assume that ISPs offer service mainly in one country. Ideally we
> would like to be given either a large block or multiple smaller ones so
> we can assign a block to each country and perform route summarisation
> internally within our OSPF cloud.

This is in line with the proposal.
Even for internal use only, country related address blocks are handy for
daily operations. The customers of multinational providers get
nationalized addresses for the ease of internal and external routing
(local peerings). Since each multinational vendor has a local company
for operations having a country-related address block like any other
(national) provider is perfectly in line.