[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jun 21 20:37:36 CEST 2004
Hi, On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 07:04:28PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Monday 21 June 2004 18:31, Gert Doering wrote: > > If you estimate that you will continue to be very small, you could use > > a /40 or such from one of your upstream ISPs (which is a problem *today*, > > as there are not enough upstream ISPs, indeed). > > I could get native IPv6 connectivity from 3 upstreams today (OK, only from 2 > for commercial purposes). TTBOMK, no multihoming facility exists without your > own /32 allocation (considering aggregation, probably just as well). As of today, multihoming with a more-specific from one of your upstreams will work - using the classic BGP multihoming approach. I don't know what the multi6 WG will come up with in the end, but can't really imagine that there is something else which will work for an ISP. > > If you are in good hope to reach more than 200 customers, you fulfill > > the criteria (as has been mentioned before). > > Of course, I'm in good hope of reaching that goal. If that's good enough, fine > but how do I document this hope? Will the NCC take my word for it? ;) They have to :-) - in the last 5 years, hardly anybody could be *sure* to have 200 IPv6 customers after two years - but unless you are sure that you won't reach that goal (due to your customer structure, whatever) the underlying goal is "optimism and get IPv6 rolled out". [..] > > Quite a number of people from various regions insisted on it, at that time, > > for fear of a "landrush" or "routing table explosion" (routing table slots > > *are* a scarce resource indeed, but changing this policy to "every LIR > > in existance today gets one" won't hurt *that* much). > > Well the landslide hasn't happened as far as I can see :) Even though I'd love > to see it happen. Things are moving, and I think the current pace isn't too bad. Too fast will not necessarily help... > The routing table does need to be considered, but it still is IMO a technical > problem. Although it seems there is a shift in v4 policies away from > aggregation in favour of conservation (no more reservations for contiguous > address space, etc) Let's not discuss IPv4 policy in this thread (but I agree). [..] > > So shall we abandon it? In favour of *what* to replace it? > > My proposal would be similar to the ARIN (I think) one: > Any LIR in good standing is entitled to a /32 with justification for any > follow-up allocation. Well, initially all regions had the "200 customers" rule (which made the whole process difficult, because the goal was a *global* policy). I need to check whether this has changed recently in one of the other regions. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]