[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Fri Jun 18 21:08:10 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-17, at 15.33, Jon Lawrence wrote: >> >> Now, this is another argument *altogether*, not a reason to start >> counting internal assignments. If we want to discuss whether >> rewording the 200 customers rule needs tuning, let's discuss that. > > Agreed - I was just wondering if anyone remembered why the 200 rule > came into > being in the first place. > The documentation clearly states 200 end user sites. So I'd interpret > that as > meaning that internal assignments didn't count. Which I am arguing is silly. We want IPv6 deployment to take off, right? So let's set the threshold for getting blocks fairly low. There is already a price on IPv6 blocks, the LIR fee. The 200 sites/end-users/customers/whatever does not make much sense. We are all even using fairly divergent specs for what the requirement is. And I don't remember it from the top of my head. However, I would argue that 200 assignments (internal, external, whatever you want) is enough. It's a measurement we have fairly good grip on by now. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNM9nqarNKXTPFCVEQJ0vACeMyf8pn3MCKOHZT0076rL1vzrh88An0LB rgIYdV5omq+OFA3Qs7/vB9Xw =ABb2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]