[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 19:40:38 CEST 2005
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Gert Doering wrote: >> Looks like every enterprise out there would also get a /32. > > If they are willing to undergo the necessary paperwork, and pay the > yearly fees, yes. > > (Which is only different from today insofar as "today the enterprise > has to lie to RIPE [or be quite creative in their definition of 'customer'] > to get the /32" - look at current allocations where people are wondering > how the critera could have been fulfilled) No, it's very different. Only the biggest enterprises can lie or "find the right words" about the "200 /48 other organizations" rule. For example, explain they have 200 branch offices for which those wouldn't really be separate organizations. With the proposed model, 1-man enterprise could also get a /32. I guess there's practically no way to prevent very big enterprises from getting a /32 under the current policies, if the sites want the space. But we must not extent that to "every enterprise out there". There are way too many of those. >> 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. > > I'm wondering what your alternative proposal is, as you don't like the > 200-customer rule either. Don't get me wrong: the current policy is OK to me, but I could accept some amount of rewording. The current proposal is overkill, though. As to the alternative.. we could, for example, decrease the 200-customer limit to (say) 50 or add add some text to describe what we really meant with that (for example, you don't actually need to get 200 v6 customers in 2 years, but that you basically have 200 distinct customers). Some clarification for basically transit-only ISPs could also be done. I think we (as in, the "community", hopefully, "the global community") could find the words to achive this. > If you're worried about a landslide: let's put an (arbitrary) safety > margin in there "only 5000 prefixes are handed out, then we stop and > re-evaluate policy". Quite the contrary. If we start with too liberal policy now, we're never (practically) going to change it to be stricter later. -- 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 ]