[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

At 19:25 07/04/2005, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:22:49PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> as stealth PI) I'm keeping an open mind. Still, just repeating "200 is 
>> a problem" to eachother doesn't help, we need to know where the 200 
>> limit gets in the way in the real world.
>
>People are not making IPv6 allocation requests because they assume that
>they won't have 200 active IPv6 customers in two years time.
>
>Those that *do* make requests usually find a way to word their "plan"
>in a way that the request is granted, but a fair number of smaller ISPs
>have told me that they didn't send in a request at all, due to not
>wishing to tell lies.

We are probably in this camp. We manage two transit networks, one of which is intended to manage itself in 2-3 years. I was able to get PI v4 space to address its PoPs, but the existing policies won't allow me to do the same for v6, so no point in applying. Or does a transit network count as an exchange?

We think the 200-customer criterion should be scrapped, and so support the proposal. 

-- Tim