[ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes-InputRequested

At 01:50 PM 1/26/2007 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> De: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>

>> 
>> First I don't necessarily see the need to change the existing policy.  I'd
>> don't see the 200 /48s plan as a real hinderance to a legitimate LIR.
>
>So do you think is not possible an ISP to have a few customer and make
>profitable business ?

I certainly think it is very possible to have a business and only a few
customers and be a profitable.  That isn't the question we should be
considering in defining the policy.  

We also need to be considering how these changes will impact the routing
infrastructure.  Like it or not the policies we set have a very real impact
of the routing infrastructure.  While ARIN doesn't set routing policy it
can heavily influence how routing economics (or lack thereof) effect the
network architecture and infrastructure.

How about this case...

I have a home business and want to defray the costs of my internet service
so I want to assign a /48 to my neighbors who will receive service via
wireless.  I'm now an LIR and eligible for a /32.  

That doesn't seem like the type of organization who is an LIR/ISP as was
envisioned by others when defining the IPv6 routing infrastructure.


>
>Do you think is reasonable to stop people that are willing or already doing
>business this way ?
>
>In fact, when I introduced my idea about this possible policy proposal at
>the last meeting, I recall at least a couple of people in the room being in
>this situation, so is something real.

I'm more than happy to entertain how we can get IPv6 address space to
legitimate ISPs who need address space.  However, I think we need
guidelines that define who is elgible and not just open the gates for any
entity to receive IPv6 /32s.  

Andrew