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

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:34:08AM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme case of
> an operator which only sells transits to multihomed customers who
> already have their own address. Unless that operator starts assigning
> /48s to P-t-P costumer links he'll be hard depressed to come up with 
> 200 nets qualifying as end site on his own infrastructure. 

Maybe you misunderstood my last two e-mails.  I'm well aware of that 
problem, but it's tricky to get the policy right here.

I think one can tackle this by extending the clause to "200 customers,
OR 20 downstream ASes" - or by dropping the clause altogether.

[..]
> > This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters.  Right now, the rules
> > are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have
> > 200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go 
> > to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify.
> 
> Or, if the smaller clients with PA IPv4 space have totally diferent time
> frames than the bigger PI transit clients. Anyway, I see what you mean.

The current focus for the RIPE hostmasters is "make sure IPv6 addresses
are available to people wanting to work with it", and not "conserve!!!".

[..]
> > It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects).
> 
> I figure interested people are in both lists so I tried to
> keep cross posting down ;)

It's sometimes unavoidable, as many of the IPv6 things end up in the
ipv6-wg, of course, but policy really belongs to lir-wg.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  54495  (54267)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299