Hi, On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:12:14PM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:57:19AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Nobody (from the RIPE region) ever spoke in favour of it, as far as I can remember...
Actually ... It was a compromise between the different regions.
Yes, I remember :-) - I just said "nobody from *us* direly wanted to see it there". Obviously someone from the other regions must have.
As such, it worked just fine since we managed to get a policy in place that worked better than the one before. Times change though and it seems that nobody cares at all anymore about the fact that we are dealing here with global resource that has global impact and that should have a global policy.
The differences in IPv4 policy are much more fundamental, and things are still running quite well. So minor differences in the v6 policy shouldn't do great harm. OTOH, a globally unique policy is nearly impossible to change (in any sort of reasonable timeframe) given the current RIR/LIR structures - as we can see here. These issues ("can we give an allocation to a 3GPP network? to a big transit provider with few direct customers?") are open issues since years now, and there doesn't seem to be any coordinated effort to change the global policy, or to integrate LACNICs local changes (if there *is* a global effort going on, it's hiding well, and I apologize for noticing it). [..]
So I don't think there was such a strong need for removeing the rule, just if we clarified it sufficiently so that people would not (again!) interpret it too strongly.
We would definitely need to clarify it "very much so".
This is not about clarifying. The policy is very clear: 'you need a plan to have 200 customers'.
"...in two years time". So what happens if you assume that it's unlikely that you'll reach that number (which would be "normal" for any network these days, unfortunately)? Do known-unrealistic plans count as well? Also it's not that clear that it have to be *customers* (what about LIRs that have only few direct re-selling ISP customers, but zillions of end sites connected to *them*?) or just "/48 assignments". What's a "site", by the way?
I cannot help it that people have trouble reading that. Getting rid of the requirement for 'a plan' or for '200 customers' is a 'policy change' not a 'clarification'. And policy changes should be discussed out in the open and not be sneaked in as if they are just a minor 'clarification'.
Hmmm, you must have missed something in my summary e-mail :-) - let me repeat that part: --------- snip ---------- Judging from the discussion, and "counting voices", I propose to proceed as follows: - study the "other regions policy" report from the RIPE NCC - try to come up with new rules for the allocation criteria, dropping the 200-assignments part, and integrate whatever is necessary to balance the remainder. - circulate that proposal, present it at RIPE49, and if there is consensus, integrate it into the official RIPE policy. --------- snip ---------- I won't consider that "sneaking it in". 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