Agree, let's go the 200 customers, but keep the /48. Otherwise in order to be coherent, lets change RFC3177 also (which I will not agree). Regards, Jordi
De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Organización: Unfix Responder a: "address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:18:48 +0200 Para: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen@tiscali.no> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 06:57 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
<SNIP>
11. Rationale: a. Arguments supporting the proposal Many LIRs' networks do not have 200 customers to make assignments to but still maintain autonomous network and addressing policies. These require address space that is both aggregatable and independent from that of their peers. In addition, a /48 assignment is not always appropriate; ISPs might have different plans for the size of the assignments they will make and the policy should not stand as an obstacle for them. Such a change in the policy will also make IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration of IPv6 development.
The 200 thing can go indeed. The /48, which is the minimum assignment towards that endsite must stay. Otherwise there will be ISP's who are going to give out /56's, /58's, /60's, /62's etc.
The reason for the _minimum_ of a /48 is that when you want to change over to another ISP that you can get the equally sized /48. Or do you want to get, say, 3 IPv6's IP's from your upstream ISP?
If you are so extremely big that you need multiple /48's (which contain 65k /64's as you will know) you are also more than capable of getting your own TLA under the new proposed #gamma policy, and most people will most likely going to just that for a large amount of reasons, especially because they simply want 'an entry in the routing table'...
Greets, Jeroen