On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 01:21:39PM +0100, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
IPv4 addresses they have or what plans they have for IPv6. Only one thing matters: the organization has proven that they have a real IP network and can justify receiving a RIPE IPv4 allocation. This means that they are a real IP network operator. And since all IP network operators will tranisition to IPv6 at some time in the future, they should need no other justification for an IPv6 allocation.
Here here. This process should be much more streamlined than the person doing the IPv6 initiall allocation request saying "we have n networks, covering m addresses, we plan to dual stack everything in the future so we need x IPv6 space". There should be a simple rule saying for x IPv4 space you get y IPv6 space, if you need more you'd need to justify it.
The same rule should apply in all the other 4 RIR regions.
The pseudo-logic behind this rule is that IPv4 addresses are scarce therefore we have to be careful how many we allocate and who we give them to. Since IPv6 is like IPv4 we also need complex rules to limit who gets addresses. The flaw is that IPv6 is not *LIKE* IPv4. It is a simpler and more flexible
Even if it was *LIKE* IPv4, using the same criteria would make sense. As it's not, using IPv4 has a criteria means you're already using a stricter criteria than needed.
This means that the risk of doing the wrong thing is vastly smaller than it was with IPv4. We should plan to err on the side of simplicity and flexibilty, i.e. give everyone an IPv6 allocation if they already have an IP network. There is very little downside to doing this.
As oposed to making needlessly hard to get an assigment on the edges of the Internet, where the commercial demand starts. cheers -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.