RE: IPv6 Allocation Policy

Brian / Craig,

> Craig E. Huegen wrote:
> I think the cleanest solution is finding some way to use the
> existing policy but slightly amended for end-user.  Let me
> throw what I would consider reasonable:  end-user networks
> with more than, say, 1000 segments and 2 discrete ISP's?

I could live with this but I would add presence in at least two
different continents (to enforce the "multinational" part of it).


> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> However, I suspect that any attempt to define "large
> multinational" precisely is going to be hard. It would
> be a brave person who defines N and M in "has physical
> sites in at least N countries, and is connected worldwide
> to at least M different ISPs."

Although it is true that most people admit that megacorps will have a
globally routable prefix, the reason behind this admission is mostly
that this is a fact of life, some of them already have one, they're big
enough to become a real LIR, they can use 800-pound gorilla tactics, etc
(opposed to a consensus on defining what is a megacorp and granting
megacorps a prefix).

In other words: it's not a bad idea but reaching consensus on the
definition is going to be extremely difficult as it's all political and
not technical.


> I think that is something we can't fix at the allocation
> policy level.

Well, have we tried? It might be worth exploring.


> Megacorps will do what they do today, until
> the IETF offers a viable multihoming solution. And that
> is being vigorously debated on the relevant IETF list.

Agree.

Michel.


_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6