David Conrad wrote:
I'm confused. According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the existing policy doesn't require requesters to have 200 customers. All that it requires is that an LIR not be an end site, provide IPv6 connectivity, and "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years."
Note it says "a plan". An organization incapable of coming up with _a plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant problems than not having IPv6 space. <climbs onto soapbox>
This is the most weaselly-worded clause of any RIR policy I've read. If we *actually* cared about creating a /real/ barrier to DFZ membership - for aggregation or for any other reason - why on earth would we require a *plan* rather than actual numbers? Conversely, if we *don't* care about creating a real barrier, why have this charade at all? As it stands, the 'plan' clause is a sufficient loophole that it does not serve well either purpose of enforcing aggregation, or *not* enforcing aggregation. It is far from being a clear and credible policy, and it should be taken out and shot. <off soapbox> Niall, who apologises for the excessive markup