On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country....
Just in case anybody here else thinks that the vastness of a /32 presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let it be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is not the case.
All an ISP (in Tuvalu or Fiji or Vanuatu or anywhere else) needs to do is say to APNIC "I am an ISP, and I have a plan to hook up 200 customers with v6 in the next two years. Those customers will need addresses, so please give me a /32." The RIR might ask you a few questions about your plans, but assuming they sound plausible, the answer will be "yes, here you go."
None of the RIRs currently say "please justify why you need to be able to number devices in 4294967296 subnets, and why each of those subnets needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices". If they did, nobody would have v6 address space today.
IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different.
We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month, or something :-)
Joe
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf