[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Mon Apr 4 10:40:36 CEST 2005
Agree, let's go the 200 customers, but keep the /48. Otherwise in order to be coherent, lets change RFC3177 also (which I will not agree). Regards, Jordi > De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> > Organización: Unfix > Responder a: "address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net> > Fecha: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:18:48 +0200 > Para: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen at tiscali.no> > CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial > Allocation Criteria > > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 06:57 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > <SNIP> > >> 11. Rationale: >> a. Arguments supporting the proposal >> Many LIRs' networks do not have 200 customers to make assignments >> to but still maintain autonomous network and addressing policies. >> These require address space that is both aggregatable and independent >> from that of their peers. In addition, a /48 assignment is not >> always appropriate; ISPs might have different plans for the size >> of the assignments they will make and the policy should not stand >> as an obstacle for them. Such a change in the policy will also make >> IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration >> of IPv6 development. > > The 200 thing can go indeed. The /48, which is the minimum assignment > towards that endsite must stay. Otherwise there will be ISP's who are > going to give out /56's, /58's, /60's, /62's etc. > > The reason for the _minimum_ of a /48 is that when you want to change > over to another ISP that you can get the equally sized /48. > Or do you want to get, say, 3 IPv6's IP's from your upstream ISP? > > If you are so extremely big that you need multiple /48's (which contain > 65k /64's as you will know) you are also more than capable of getting > your own TLA under the new proposed #gamma policy, and most people will > most likely going to just that for a large amount of reasons, especially > because they simply want 'an entry in the routing table'... > > Greets, > Jeroen >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]