[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
Hi,
i think i really agree with the "usual guy" from finland, however i also
think we should follow up on this and go a bit further (as soon as
possible)
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 200 is too low for some classes of ISPs, too high for some others.
...and what about ITPs (internet service^H^H^H^H^H^H^H transit providers)?
> 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)
easy way to jump from the "interpretation field" to the "easy-to-follow
policy": adding a line saying if LIR is an NREN disregard the 200 figure.
(NREN is an easy definition...)
> - transit ISP's whose only direct customers are other ISP's
do the same, sed -e s/NRENs/ITPs/
> - others?
this might be a good time... or we'll have to add lines often... :-)
> 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.
Why do we have to go on "interpretation" and not on "lets state the policy
as accurately as we can"?
Comments welcomed.
Regards,
./Carlos
"Networking is fun!"
-------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt
<cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup
F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
