On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Måns Nilsson wrote:
But, I *think* that Gerts point was that our job is to make it as easy as possible to prepare for when (if) customers want IPv6.
And our customers want it (since we're NREN, few others care right now..) but we've got our /32 so all is nice and hunky dory and they are satisifed. As soon as we can get these shiny v4 routers behave, that is.
OTOH, I'd hate to see the same mistakes (that seemed reasonable at the time) that were made in the v4 sunrise period be repeated in v6, like: [...]
Remember, the current policy was designed to meet two goals: 1) giving easy access to an IPv6 prefix allocation for real ISPs, and 2) not giving a prefix to enterprises or "toy" (or other small) ISPs. The mechanisms how this has been policed to a degree have been the "200 /48's" and "_to other organizations_" rules. If we still agree that we don't want to give /32's to enterprises, toy ISPs without any real number of customers (hey! my consulting company has two connectivity customers as well, should I get a /32 prefix?), or such, we have to keep in some checks. On the other hand, I think everyone agrees that real ISPs, with a large numbers of customers, should get a v6 allocation without any hassle. The current policy has allowed that, even though it's wording (".. in two years") might have been a bit scary. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings