This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Joao Damas
Joao_Damas at isc.org
Tue Jun 22 09:54:59 CEST 2004
On 21 Jun, 2004, at 17:00, Havard Eidnes wrote: >> I really fail to see the reason behind the 200 other organisation >> rule - perhaps someone would like to explain the logic. > > I think the logic is that the RIRs are trying to portion out routing > space so that we don't get a global routing table explosion in IPv6 in > the same way we have (had) in IPv4. To acheive this, they need to make > sure that the small ISPs don't get their own allocation, If this is true, it is really disturbing given that the RIPE NCC was rather proactive some years ago when the whole TLA/NLA/SLA structure was conceived with the main objective of allowing only up to 8192 players in the global routing table. Eventually everyone got to see the point of view championed by DFK that it would be undue regulation of the industry. Now, like then, the arguments in favour of imposing this limitation where all to do with the current technical difficulties with coping with a huge routing table. Also disturbing is that, while there are groups working on proposing new solutions to the multihoming problem, the policy seems to reflect a conviction that they will fail and therefore there need to be constraints imposed at a table size of a few hundred entries. I would like to suggest that if the multihoming proposals fail, then the policy becomes irrelevant because so does IPv6. Therefore the policy ought to be as relaxed as possible to not preclude any possible growth at this stage. > but instead go > to their upstream provider for an IPv6 address space delegation. I > can't really see another reason for this particular aspect of the > policy. > Joao
- 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 ]