Why not IPv6 yet (Re: IPv6 traffic data in Asian networks?)

[Jeroen Massar]

Gert Doering wrote:
[..]
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:59:49AM +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> That the RIPE region can't formulate a proper way tsja. Apparently the
>> only push at the moment is to throw out the 200 rule and giving
>> everybody who wants then a /32, not because they need it, but because it
>> is more fun to do, or something silly which I still don't understand.
>> And clearly nobody else, otherwise they could have answered my questions
>> I asked for on the mailing list.
> 
> This has been discussed numerous times - there are LIRs that just have
> a small number of very big customers (like "5 major universities"),
> will never have 200 customers, but clearly justify having v6 space on 
> their own.  
> 
> Furthermore, if you claim to see no reason to do away with the 200-customer
> rule - you haven't give any reason to *stick* to it either.

Did I write to stick with it ? :)
As I wrote on the address-policy-wg list ~2 days ago:

8<----------------
Short summary of my vision:
 - Anyone who can pay $fee to RIR should be able to get a /48 or larger.
 - Size depends on what needs they have.
------------->9

Which includes:
 - ISP's for LOTS of endusers, they can justify 200k custs: get a /30's
 - NREN's: they have 5 Uni's: eg 5x /40
 - Company's: they only need a /48

Which would make everybody happy and not only remove the 200 rule.

RIR's should provide the address space to an organization in the amount
that they actually need, not the amount that is arbitrarily chosen.

Of course to make allocation easier the RIR might choose to give out for
instance only blocks of sizes /48, /40 and then </32 to avoid having
strangely fragmented blocks in their own pool

> The question that should be asked in this discussion is "do we want 
> ISPs (=LIRs) to provide IPv6 or not?" - and if the answer is "yes", then
> the RIPE policies should make it *easy* to get IPv6 PA blocks to ISPs.

See above, I fully agree with this.

[..]
>> But if I where in a dire need for "IPv6
>> PI" (every body wants a slot in the routing table it seems) then I would
>> have long ago proposed a new policy at RIPE. Clearly nobody who has this
>> huge need for IPv6 PI has done so yet. And really, big ISP's can't care
>> less about doing it for you, if you want it, do it yourself.
> 
> This statement is just not true.  There *is* an IPv6 PI policy proposal
> (2006-01) by Jordi Palet.  It's currently in review phase, as the APWG
> didn't like the first draft, and thus Jordi is working with Filiz on
> incorporating the comments received.

On which I have also commented already that it should simply be solved
by the very simple thing I mentioned above which covers everybody with
the same single simple policy.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20070323/205883cd/signature.bin