RE: IPv6 Allocation Policy

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > Thomas Narten wrote:
> > | From the policy:
> > | d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to
> > |    other organizations within two years.
> > There are some who feel that this bar is too high. In
> > particular, the number 200 is unrealistic, and some ISPs
> > don't even bother to apply because they don't feel like they
> > meet this criteria. 
> 
> There are also some who feel that this bar is too low. There are not too
> many ISPs that have less than 200 customers _and_ are multihomed. There
> is nothing that says that the other organizations have to request the
> IPv6 assignment; an ISP can assign a /48 to each customer as part of the
> default setup. Unless I see specific cases I don't feel 200 is an
> unreasonable number.

200 is too low for some classes of ISPs, too high for some others.

It could be argued to be too low for those who do e.g. DSL or dial-up 
services, ie. have a lot of customers.

It could be argued to be too low for those who specialize in very specific 
fields, and do not have many direct customers, but a lot of "last-mile" 
customers, for example:
 - national research networks whose only direct customers are the 
universities (or similar) (which may have tens of thousands of users each, 
but there may not be 200 universities in a country)
 - transit ISP's whose only direct customers are other ISP's
 - others?

Typically I think the rules have been interpreted by looking at the number
of "last-mile" customers when there has been a problem with 200 sites, not
direct customers.  Which is good, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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