[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

Hi Nils,

El 02/07/2004, a las 2:03, Nils Ketelsen escribió:

> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>> Jon Lawrence <jon at lawrence.org.uk> writes:
>> It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this
>> rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive
>> to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a
>> serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially
>> an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter
>> is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general.
>
> I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need 
> for
> address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy 
> IPv6 in
> a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in 
> their
> network.
>

imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean 
when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.

to which i guess one option is what you mention below....
[...]

>
> Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" 
> but
> rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be
> negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more 
> useful
> numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these 
> are
> big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more 
> end-users
> then most ISPs.
>

how much is x?

regards, marcelo

>
>> "other organizations" was intended to ensure that we don't get end
>> sites saying "hey, I've got a global (internal) network, with 200
>> branch offices (each with a /48). I should qualify for an allocation".
>
> I think these should qulify as much as an ISP connecting 200 
> Dialup-users.
>
> Nils
> -- 
> *SAMMELT OBSTKERNE!*
>