Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

[Takashi Arano <arano@gblx.ad.jp>]

Cathy,

At 12:16 02/02/08, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
>First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is
>just fine...  thanks for the thoughtful note.  I have one comment
>(see below)

Thanks. 
Are you supporting my idea except this one?

>     At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
>     >Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in"
>     >and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who
>     >should have a /48 from their upstream...?
>     
>     Yes, this is the point.
>     
>     I basically supports RIPE's consensus.
>     First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 
>     is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. 
>     Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far.
>     
>     Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" 
>     is almost OK, but one problem may be
>     to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. 
>     In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as 
>     I heard. This may include an large enterprise.
>     One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even
>     if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested.
>
>In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN
>by paying a fee.  to get address space, however, you have to give 
>quite a lot of justification.  Every ARIN member does not have address
>space.  I just want to make sure that's clear.  I am a member of ARIN
>as an individual.  I paid $500 for the year 2002.  I have no address space
>and I am not what you'd call an LIR.

Thank you for your clarification. Maybe your comment supports
an idea of avoiding use of the term "LIR".

Regards,
Takashi Arano

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net