On Sun, 12 May 2002, Francis Dupont wrote:
=> one detail which is never called to mind here is an university which gives internet access to its students *outside* the university (i.e. in a context where students can need a /48) should be sued by all commercial ISPs for illegal competition using public money...
I think most NREN AUP's make this sort of activity unlikely; certainly in the UK you can't generally run commercial services over JANET, and you certainly can't resell academic bandwidth to external users.
So universities can't be real ISPs by them selves, and to come back to the first topic, 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.
I would hope that universities do not want or need a SubTLA?
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.
I would envisage a university getting one /48 for its campus and another out of which to allocate staff/student dialup/etc - as Pekka says for this kind of activity (the university is not a full-blown ISP) the end user gets a /64. An interesting question is whether the types of devices that become deployed in campus departments keep the routing hierarchy similar for IPv6 as IPv4, or whether we'll see devices that offer a /64 per office, for example. Tim