[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Frotzler
florian at frotzler.priv.at
Mon Nov 30 17:43:51 CET 2009
-> this is a good thing, give them the address space <- Managing various SP prefix is a burden for large operators or might even be a show-stopper for 6RD rollout. Cheers, Florian 2009/11/30 Gert Doering <gert at space.net>: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:45:52AM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Ahem, future innovation with IPv6 (whatever that is, beyound disabling >> insecure protocol features) needs to take VSLM into account. It's >> also likely that the requirement that all unicast addresses most be >> within at least a /64 will be eventually overturned because those bits >> could be used in a more useful fashion. > > This is well out of scope for any address policy discussion going on today. > > When and if the IETF decides that non-/64-subnets are a desirable feature, > it makes sense to discuss the consequences on address policy here - before > that, it's a waste of bits. > > Please let's be focussed on the question at hand - which side do we want > to err to? > > - be very conservative in giving out IPv6 address space, risking that > IPv6 will just never take off - for fear of running out of space > "if we happen to very radically move the boundary by 8 bits multiple > times" > > - be very liberal in giving out IPv6 address space, risking that we run > out of FP001 sooner than expected, and that we will have to do a more > restrictive policy later on - but doing our best to actually get IPv6 > out and deployed > > Whatever we decide, history will tell us that we have been wrong in > our predictions... > > Given the original question: as far as I understood the question, the > RIPE NCC IPRAs consider the request to be inside the boundaries permitted > by policy, if a bit larger than "typical". So we don't really need a > formal policy change here, just guidance to the IPRAs "this is a good > thing, give them the address space" or "this is not a good thing, refuse!". > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]