[address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6

At 17:00 17/11/2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:

>*** PGP Signature Status: good
>*** Signer: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> (Invalid)
>*** Signed: 17/11/2005 17:00:26
>*** Verified: 17/11/2005 17:08:46
>*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
>
>Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> It should go. We manage a transit network connecting Middle-eastern
>> and North African national research networks (NRENs).
>> The aim is that this grouping go independent of us at some point
>> and manage everything themselves.
>
>So in say 10 years you are not managing it anymore? Most NREN's already
>have plenty of address space, so why not use that address space?

We are an LIR and we already have a /32 for the European NREN transit network that we also manage (GEANT). You don't use customer address space to address your transit network. What happens if that customer goes bankrupt or wants the space back or takes their custom elsewhere? And it's intended to be a couple of years, not 10.

>> I was able to get v4 PI space for
>> this from RIPE, but the 200 rule appears to rule out these guys using
>v6. Oh well.
>
>Do you need a /32 full of address space or do you want PI?
>If you only need a single /48, then requesting a /32 is quite silly
>don't you think? And also quite a waste.

We don't need a /32 obviously. Can we get a /48? And can we get it routed?

>Do note, that this is nothing against you, but if you get a /32 because
>you want PI, then a lot of other small organisations (read: individuals)
>may want one.
>
>Constructive part, same style as to the NATO one:
> - You have 50 PoPs.
> - You have say 150 employees
>
>(both can be a plan, you might fail but hell.. it still is a plan)

So you're saying we should lie to RIPE when necessary? Seems to me much better to adjust the policies to fit reality.

>That is already 200. Become LIR and get it.

See above.  

-- Tim