In your previous mail you wrote: The students can need a /48 for example to be able to easily connect to both commercial ISP and university (the same prefix length argument). => I don't believe in a /48 per student in an university framework, nor in commercial/academic dual homing.
So universities can't be real ISPs by them selves
This is in practise a valid assumption, but I don't think the way you derived it is valid. That is: there is no law (usually) which says the university should give poorer service to its students, staff etc. than ISP's. => there are a lot of laws about what may be done with public money and they give either an AUP which makes the network useless (a standard issue with "research" networks) or some kind of "collaboration" between a commercial ISP (in Europe the "historic" one) and the university. In the second case, there is no more a need for commercial/academic dual homing (a backdoor between the ISP and the internal network of the university is enough) and the "by them-selves" is removed. I really can't see Universities being sued, except if they provide services to those that haven't enrolled or something. => in this part of Europe I saw ISPs put pressure on universities and even local communities in order to "convince" them to not provide services. But even without this kind of practice, to provide ISP services is not the job of an university and should be avoided when there are other solutions. BTW I don't believe this applies to an USA large university/ campus.
if you are an ISP or an ISP-like organization with a 2 year plan for 200 or more IPv6 /48 customers, the 3 BGP peers with the default-free routing table rule should not be a problem.
You took a different approach here: if Big_Enough_ISP then 3 BGP peers and entries in DFZ should not be a problem This is new (perhaps this is the case, perhaps not. I can easily think of scenarios where small dial-up ISP's have 200 customers but no 3 BGP peers). => small == not big (:-)? IMHO here big enough is tear-N with N very small, and don't forget the 200 customers have to be IPv6 customers. But as was pointed out: if 3 BGP peers and entries in DFZ may not be Big_Enough_ISP from Global Policy point of view This what started this debate: NREN's. Note: in some small countries (Denmark?) there may not be that many Exchange Points or commercial operators that such a peering is possible. => I think the issue is not with UNI-C but with Nordunet which is a NREN and doesn't follow the standard ISP way to do business (of course, a NREN doesn't do business :-). Difference is there.
The real problem is today an organization is supposed to be "large enough" to get a sub-TLA from its RIR or to be connected to such an organization which delegates a prefix. The case where the organization providing the connectivity doesn't provide a prefix too is both against the ideas of "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy" and perhaps its letter.
That is a real problem. Usually probably caused by the fact that a) upstream organization does not care (about IPv6 at this point at least), or b) they can't really get a block anyway (or it is too difficult, and they don't want to go through all the troubles) due to too strict policies. => IMHO the main reason of this problem comes from the fact that Nordunet is a NREN, not a real/standard ISP. In these cases, they probably end up with 6bone pTLA. Which is probably for the good for now. => I've got the same conclusion. Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr