RE: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

Hi Tim,

[...]

> Regarding the "200 customers", not in the RIPE region many NRENs have
> allocations even though they do not have 200 universities to serve.  There
> has to be some flexibility in the RIR interpreting the intent of the
> applicant,

IMHO this is a problem with the current policy.

Policy must be clear and i don't think it is good idea to make exceptions.

IPv6 policy has to take into account NRENS and other cases like that



> rather than the applicant playing the numbers game to get their
> request granted.
>
> I would much rather see consistent text in all RIRs than divergence of
> policies.
>

I guess this is good goal to try to achieve, but i guess that we should
understand what the requirements of the different regions are.

A possible approach is to try to understand what kind of changes (if any)
are required by each region and see if we can make a policy that satisfies
them all.

> One area that is a little fuzzy (I would welcome clarification) is the
> experimental allocations that RIRs can make.  These would seem the place
> for some consistency (in policy and pricing!) now that 6bone prefixes
> are no longer available.   Any small startups or experimenting ISPs could
> then utilise such address space, helping the bootstrap issue while keeping
> a more consistent policy?
>

As far as i understand this is not the case for initatives that want to
provide commercial services with the allocated addresses, at least this is
not what is being proposed for the lacnic region.

Exprimental allocations cannot be used for commercail purposes as stated in
the policy.

Regards, marcelo


> Tim

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