On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jon Allen Boone wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > > 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 :-) > > > > And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be > deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how? tunnels. > > --jon > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf