Re: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation

[Carlos Morgado <]

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:49:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:39:53PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:22:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > What I am saying is that the current IPv6 allocation policy was made with
> > > the needs of people in mind that want to connect to "the global Internet",
> > 
> > Not even that, as it doesn't take into account transit providers.
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of that.  Most of those do have some sort of end customers,
> though, and should easily be able to get address space under the current
> policy.
> 

In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure 
transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are
multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are
fairly small. 

Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned 
allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy 
dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now. 
In the mean while, I can't promise IPv6 transits to our costumers if 
I'm not sure I can deliver them. So, in order to allocate the resources to
bootstrap the process I need to be "optimist" in my allocation plans ;)


> For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted.  The to-be-formed
> editorial committee needs to find a solution here.

I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ? 

I'm also curious to know about other providers sufering from this problem
and what solutions they propose.

cheers

-- 
Carlos Morgado chbm@localhost - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594
GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B  599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2
The views expressed above do not bind my employer.