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

Hi,

on your other wish for clarification:

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:36:28PM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote:
>     "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
>      organisation must [...] plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to
>      organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that
>      connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation"
> 
> LIRs who operate closed/private networks appear not to qualify because
> the address space in these networks will not be advertised. Was this the
> community's intention?

At the time this was written, "site-local" addresses where considered
as the solution for these networks.  Since then, they have mostly been
deprecated, but a new solution (draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt)
seems to be in sight.

I've seem some comments to the extent of "we must be very liberal here".

The more interesting question is: does it make any difference?  

Of course there are large numbers of enterprises that operate closed 
networks, but does anyone have numbers about the number of *LIRs* that 
purposely and permanently do not connect their PA-allocated network blocks 
to "the Internet", while still paying yearly RIR membership fees?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299