Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria

[Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi Anne,

Thanks for your comment. I feel it difficult how we should describe it
in the guideline since we cannot guarantee the allocation if an LIR 
sticks to /64 not /48 as long as the policy says "200 x /48" but 
anyway I try to. Maybe we can add some substantial examples in here.

Thanks and best regards,
Toshi


From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC 7) Initial allocation criteria
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:47:43 +1000 (EST)

> 
> 
> Hi Toshi,
> 
> > suppose what Maruta-san would like to raise here is even if LIR has
> > lots of, say 100,000, customer to be assigned /64, it does not reach
> > 200 /48 criteria.
> > 
> >  /48 = 65,536 x /64 
> >  200 x /48 = 200 x 65,536 x /64 = 13,107,200 x /64 >> 100,000 x /64
> > 
> > This does not seem to meet 200 /48 criteria, as Maruta-san pointed
> > out.
> > 
> > Does anyone from APNIC have thoughts for this case?
> 
> Perhaps the guidelines should be written to emphasise the need for 
> a *plan* to provide IPv6 services, rather than the actual number of /48
> assignments. Both are valid in the context of the current policy, 
> but ultimately the intention of the policy is to target entities that 
> wish to provide IPv6 connectivity services. If there is already an 
> IPv4 network infrastructure in place (as suggested above), this can 
> also be taken into account and any such organisation as the one above, 
> would and *should* most definately qualify. 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Anne
> --