| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Thomas, > Thomas Narten wrote: > | From the policy: > | d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to > | other organizations within two years. > There are some who feel that this bar is too high. In > particular, the number 200 is unrealistic, and some ISPs > don't even bother to apply because they don't feel like they > meet this criteria. There are also some who feel that this bar is too low. There are not too many ISPs that have less than 200 customers _and_ are multihomed. There is nothing that says that the other organizations have to request the IPv6 assignment; an ISP can assign a /48 to each customer as part of the default setup. Unless I see specific cases I don't feel 200 is an unreasonable number. > Another related point that was raised concerns what happens > when two years are up and 200 customers have not been attained. > There is a fear at that point the RIRs will repossess the > allocation. This fear serves as a disincentive to apply for > space in the first place. I hardly see this as a concern; if one has 195 customers after two years I'm sure a deal can be cut with the RIR to keep the prefix. OTOH, if one only has 10 customers after two years, it is legitimate to say that one is not big enough to pollute the global routing table with their own /32. Michel.
