[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 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Furnell
andy at linx.net
Mon Apr 4 13:16:17 CEST 2005
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:40:36AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > 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). > > > De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> > > > > 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'... > > I'm just not sure this is something we want to be setting in stone. Granted once clause 'd' about 200 assignments is gone, the requirement to assign /48s would no longer seem to be an obstacle for LIRs' allocation request. However, logic still stands that even though one size (/48) may be big enough to contain just about all end-site networks it almost certainly doesn't fit them all. I agree wholeheartedly that RFC3177 should stay. However, RFC3177 contains a recommendation as to how to assign your address space, and we already draw attention to this in ripe-267 5.4.1. So it seems unnecessary (and maybe a little contradictory) to restate its recommendations as requirements; it strikes me that this should be a choice for ISPs to make and for customers to act on rather than making it a box to be ticked when making your allocation request. Andy -- Andy Furnell <andy at linx.net> Mob: +44 (0) 7909 680019 London Internet Exchange http://www.linx.net
- 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 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]