[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 ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Mon Apr 4 15:35:23 CEST 2005
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Gert Doering wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:13:20PM +0200, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> I guess that it may make sense to define a time frame here... i mean, >> an organization planning to provide IPv6 connectivity in 20 years would >> qualify here? > > Yes. But how much harm can it do? This organization would eat up about > 1/4294967296 of the address space, and pay a yearly fee to RIPE to > be permitted to keep it. Sounds like a fair deal to me. > > If the address space is allocated and doesn't even end up in the routing > tables, even better. I don't think I agree here. So, 1-man consulting companies, providing web hosting for one customer could fulfill the criteria for a /32? Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32. Doesn't look like a good idea at all. While I agree that the "200 customers" rule could maybe use a bit of improvement, I don't think removing it completely is the right fix at all. So, I'm opposed to the policy change. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- 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 ]