Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote: [..]
In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are fairly small.
Size of customer doesn't matter (everybody who might have two or more network segments gets a /48).
Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now.
This is well understood by RIPE hostmasters. Right now, the rules are meant to be interpreted in a very relaxed way - this is: if you have 200 or more IPv4 customers (that have addresses from you) that might go to IPv6 *if* it really takes off in the next years, then you qualify. If you have significantly below 200 IPv4 customers, it's becoming difficult - but you should nevertheless talk to the RIPE NCC hostmasters and see what could be done. (If it really doesn't work out under the current policy, you could use a /48 from one of your customers to number your infrastructure and your services - yes, this sucks, but it's better than no IPv6 transit at all) [..]
For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here. I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ?
It's more a lir-wg problem (as it's policy, not technical aspects). This specific problem wasn't discussed in either working group, but we are aware of it. There are a couple of other cases as well.
I'm also curious to know about other providers sufering from this problem and what solutions they propose.
Indeed. Comments welcome. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299