Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 19:40 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > Actually, the policy also specifies that you must not be an end-site.

I think that policy line actually reads "must not only be an end-site",
at least that is how I interprete it. And otherwise, you make 2 Corps,
one that has the TLA, the other that uses the address space ;)
Every organization has at least a couple of empty BV's any way, so
another one doesn't really matter. As for the 200, give every friend you
have a /48. The policies nowhere demand that you have to actually route
this prefix, it is there so that you can give 200 end-sites IPv6
connectivity to the globally unique prefix you received, which might
allow you to interconnect with other ISP's on the "IANA Internet".

For that matter, anybody could simply setup a registry and start giving
out prefixes, both IPv4 and IPv6. The only issues is, like all the
alternate DNS roots: the users are on the IANA/ICANN Internet and not on
yours. But with IPv6 you could have some success by starting to use
5000::/3 or something. (Giving away bad idea's? :)

> well, you sure caught me this time.  in august 2002 when the /32 in question
> first came to isc, i had not read the policy.  so i don't know if it was
> different from the current policy.  i assume it was, because i know that
> we qualified, officially, under the rules at the time the /32 came to us.
>
> > I'd be particularly interested in knowing what ISC said who would be their
> > 200 other organizations who they intended to allocate the address space
> > (their employees?), and how ISC would not be an end-site.
> >
> > This is a more generic issue, of course.
>
> of course.  in august 2002 there were no v6 isp's.  isc is multihomed, so
> it's difficult to imagine what isp we could have taken address space from
> then, or now.  we do allocate /48's to various open-source organizations
> who get their transit from us, but it could take us some years to add 200
> of these. 

The policy only mentions that you have the _intention_ of doing this.
Like most ISP's your intention will fail, too bad, you did fit the bill.
And this is the way it is supposed to be read as have come up many times
on the IPv6 WG list. I am quite sure that quite a number of current
allocations to ISP's for sure will never reach even 100 allocations,
simply because most of them only run a colo, maybe with some reselling
of DSL which satisfies the 'intention of 200 other endsites'.

Next to that, the policy will change where the need is there, too many
allocations and it will become stricter, IPv6 not becoming popular and
it will become more relaxed... all depends on the membership ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part