[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 ]
Sascha Luck
ripe-lst at eirconnect.net
Mon Jun 21 20:04:28 CEST 2004
On Monday 21 June 2004 18:31, Gert Doering wrote: > If you estimate that you will continue to be very small, you could use > a /40 or such from one of your upstream ISPs (which is a problem *today*, > as there are not enough upstream ISPs, indeed). I could get native IPv6 connectivity from 3 upstreams today (OK, only from 2 for commercial purposes). TTBOMK, no multihoming facility exists without your own /32 allocation (considering aggregation, probably just as well). > If you are in good hope to reach more than 200 customers, you fulfill > the criteria (as has been mentioned before). Of course, I'm in good hope of reaching that goal. If that's good enough, fine but how do I document this hope? Will the NCC take my word for it? ;) > You are wrong on this :-) - the policy was discussed again and again at > various RIPE meetings in the past 5 years. We had an interim policy, which > was bad, but better than none. Then we had this policy, which is still > not perfect, but enabled us to make progress. Fair enough. I've only attended sporadically in the last few years, so this may well have slipped past me. Mea culpa. > Quite a number of people from various regions insisted on it, at that time, > for fear of a "landrush" or "routing table explosion" (routing table slots > *are* a scarce resource indeed, but changing this policy to "every LIR > in existance today gets one" won't hurt *that* much). Well the landslide hasn't happened as far as I can see :) Even though I'd love to see it happen. The routing table does need to be considered, but it still is IMO a technical problem. Although it seems there is a shift in v4 policies away from aggregation in favour of conservation (no more reservations for contiguous address space, etc) > The way people work, usually only those who are unhappy take the burden > to figure out *where* to voice their unhappiness... Hmm, reminds me of the recent European elections ;) > So shall we abandon it? In favour of *what* to replace it? My proposal would be similar to the ARIN (I think) one: Any LIR in good standing is entitled to a /32 with justification for any follow-up allocation. Best regards, Sascha Luck Eirconnect
- 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 ]