[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Jun 8 12:11:29 CEST 2006
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Tim Streater wrote: > At 20:54 07/06/2006, David Conrad wrote: >> Jordi, >> >> Unlurking from the sidelines and speaking only for myself, some >> comments on your proposal: >> >>> It is clear that there are small Internet Service providers (ISPs) >>> that do not currently have 200 customers, consequently is not >>> feasible for them to make "at least 200 /48" assignments in two >>> years. It is, however, unfair that these ISPs have no access to >>> IPv6 address space. >> >> I'm confused. According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the existing >> policy doesn't require requesters to have 200 customers. All that it >> requires is that an LIR not be an end site, provide IPv6 >> connectivity, and "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 >> assignments to other organisations within two years." >> >> Note it says "a plan". An organization incapable of coming up with >> _a plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant problems than not >> having IPv6 space. > > > We manage transit networks. We need v6 address space to address our > backbones. We expect the allocation to be routed so we could outsource the > management of the backbone to some distant entity. All our customers are LIRs > and therefore need no space from us. We therefore, in reality, expect to > allocate no addresses to no customers in the next two years. > > I could put together a plan contradicting this fact, but it would be a lie. > Why should I lie to the RIR in order to get obtain space? This concept of "transit networks" should be part of the policy! Tim is not the only one i saw complaints from about this... > -- Tim Best Regards, ./Carlos -------------- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (184902/571), naming (millions) and... people!"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]