[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Mon Sep 30 17:29:39 CEST 2013
Hi Tero, On 9/27/13 11:55 AM, Tero Toikkanen wrote: >>> These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things >>> seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if others >>> think the same, we could change the limits. >> >> If /32 becomes the new default/minimum, keeping those limits seems to >> be counter-intuitive. > > I agree. We should propose /48 as the _minimum_ allocation for all special purposes, maybe with possible provisions for more. currently the policy states that the minimum allocation is a /32 and LIRs can request up to a /29 with no questions asked, this policy proposal does not intend to change that minimum. > >> Aside from the difference between "ever need more" and "foreseeable >> future", this means that End Users will need to decide between /48 and >> /32. To pick a specific example, FOSDEM will apply for IPv6 PI soon. >> As they need more than one single /48, under that policy the seem to >> be _forced_ to a /32. >> >> With a corporate hat on, I think it highly unlikely that anyone >> manager or sales person will be content with less than the absolute >> maximum they can get even if they don't need it. So save for a few >> corporations and maybe temporary allocations, I suspect everyone will >> go for a /32. > > I agree that the either /48 with no room for expansion or /32 is too strict. I would go as far as to propose that End Users could request anything from /48 to /32 and also be limited to that. However, this may have implications on address reservations in RIPE, as was the case with LIRs being allocated a /32 but reserved a /29. So if to avoid renumbering and to encourage aggregation we end up allocating /48s, but reserving a /32 for each one, we probably will end up at the same point again. If someone is sure that they will not need more than a /48, ever, then they can request that /48. If they have any plans to make sub-allocations, then they can receive the /32 and use it for the rest of their life. Creating different levels/limits will complicate the policy again and our aim was to make it as simple as possible. - small allocations - /48 - large allocations - /32 or more > > Furthermore, as the "LIR incentive", I'd restrict End User allocations to a /32. If you need more, you should become an LIR. I don't think adding this limitation will work. If someone does not want to become an LIR, they will simply setup a new company (it costs 50€ in most of Europe) and get an other /32 on that company's name. So, I don't think that limiting the size of the allocation the End User/Sub-LIR can receive is a good idea. cheers, elvis
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]