On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:50 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 25-nov-04, at 10:27, Jeroen Massar wrote:
200 locations doesn't seem that off to me..
That is exactly the right way to count ;)
Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32
Well, apparently RIPE thinks they do, so there must be some piece of information that I'm not privvy to.
However, in the absense of that particular piece of information, I have a hard time seeing how the BBC qualifies for a /32. Last time I checked, they weren't an ISP. 200 sites doesn't qualify you for a /32: it qualifies you for a /48 (jusst like one site does). That's 65536 subnets = ~300 subnets per site. If that's not enough, perhaps a /47 or /46 is in order, or maybe, just maybe a /40 = a /48 per site. But a /32 is ridiculous: this allows for 4 billion subnets (20 million per site).
Here is a quote from the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" (http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02 ):
5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
a) be an LIR;
Check, as long as they pay the fees ;)
b) not be an end site;
Check, the one who gets the allocation only handles the connectivity for the sites in c)
c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and
Check, all the different organizations. I btw got a very nice tree structure which details it mostly, eek, it is scary, good luck to management there.
d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years.
Check, they come quite far already. btw, it is a *plan*, you don't have to have it now. And tell me, which company/organization is not planning on expanding a lot and either annihilating or creating some other organizations under their wings in the process? :) And I hope some people now realize how they should be counting... Greets, Jeroen