Hi Nils, El 02/07/2004, a las 2:03, Nils Ketelsen escribió:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
Jon Lawrence <jon@lawrence.org.uk> writes: It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general.
I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need for address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy IPv6 in a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in their network.
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. to which i guess one option is what you mention below.... [...]
Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users then most ISPs.
how much is x? regards, marcelo
"other organizations" was intended to ensure that we don't get end sites saying "hey, I've got a global (internal) network, with 200 branch offices (each with a /48). I should qualify for an allocation".
I think these should qulify as much as an ISP connecting 200 Dialup-users.
Nils -- *SAMMELT OBSTKERNE!*