Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

[Florian Weimer <]

* Wilfried Woeber:

>>From that perspective I seem to see 2 aspects in the recent discussion:
>
> - you shall not receive address space for builing a service, you are to
>   buy that from some "big-folk".
>
>   This is an intersting point of view, and taken to the extreme will
>   make us end up with a _very small_ number of _very big_ entities.
>
>   Traditionally these things were called monopolies. Nothing I would be
>   too happy to see coming back ;-)

Oligopolies is the term, I think.  IPv6 addressing policy seems to be
geared towards that.  We know from the IPv4 experience that 20,000+
indepedent entities in the global routing table can be handled easily.
So why not try to duplicate this success?

> - there has been th discussion regarding "anycast" but isnt this just
>   a special(?) case of th PI-topic?

It depends on the PI criteria.  If slots in the global routing tables
are kept in short supply *and* you get at most one if you aren't an
ISP *and* you need to do IPv6 anycast, you might have a problem
because you need two globally visible prefixes (one for your
production network, one for anycast).

But I think you are right that it makes sense to resolve the PI first,
either negatively or positively.