Hi, On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:09:27AM +0100, matthew.ford@bt.com wrote:
imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.
What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term.
Which again brings up the question why a largish multihomed enterprise with links to ISPs in 30 different countries and 500 subsidiaries should not be granted an IPv6 allocation, while a small ISP somewhere in rural Germany with a single uplink and 200 dial-up customers *should*. Or why a big international carrier network that just doesn't do direct end-site allocations (think of the way the "Ebone" did business: only ISP down-stream customers, all having their own IP space already) should not be able to get an IPv6 allocation. (Just as a side note: there's an I-D draft out there to tie IPv6 allocations to AS numbers... though I'm not convinced that this is a good way to go, because it's likely to deplete the AS number space even faster, and [worse] move the "who is worthy?" discussion to the AS number policy). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299