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

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:36:52 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Savola wrote:
>So I don't think there was such a strong need for removeing the rule, 
>just if we clarified it sufficiently so that people would not (again!) 
>interpret it too strongly.
You might think so, but I have the impression that the community
thinks different.

The point is : We want to push IPv6 forward.

Here is the choice:

- We insist on a strict 200 customers rule: IPv6 *will* die. Period.
  Because larger companies tend to use special business ISP's
  with often have less than 200 customers, *but* the service of
  these customers probably is important to the internet users.
  And to show the complete nonsense of the /48 rule:
  This will either even exclude companies like AOL or T-Online
  from IPv6 if they do not intend to assign /48's to their
  *residential* customers, or will force them to do so, which
  sooner or later again means:
  New prefix, full table, game over.

- We "would not (again!)  interpret it too strongly":
  Then this rule is worth nothing.
   A rule which should be interpreted in this way enforces
   that every applicant sends a "plan" like:
   "Of course *we want* to get zillions of IPv6 customers and
     became the one and only monopoly provider and thus
     200 users is peanuts for us".
  A rule which should be interpreted this way is not worth the
  paper or disk space it is written on, even thru this is the
  current handling of the rule.
  We should prevent to waste the capacity of the RIPE NCC
  and limited time of their hostmasters to read such useless
  "plans" and then better completely remove the rule.
  And at the end this means:
  As it is ignored in practice, LIR will become the synonym for
  PI, which is *not* what was intended.

- We look at the intention of the rule and modify the wording in
  a useful way to keep cover on the PI pot until a technical
  solution to the global table explosion problem is provided in
  some way, but to provide full level IPv6 to all customer servicing
  true ISP's (where ISP means: companies that sell connectivity
  to other non-affiliated customers) wanting to push IPv6 forward.

I am a friend of "open words":

I can not hide my impression that there are massive commercial
interests of some large players to implement a market-prohibitive
rule because their management *thinks* they will gain additional
business customers from it. Some "technical" arguments are then
used to support this interest.

However, please here my words:
Those managers *won't get* additional customers, however
they *will* damage IPv6. For sure.

Best Regards
Oliver Bartels



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0