Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initialallocation criteria "d)"

[Måns Nilsson <]

--On måndag 21 juni 2004 10.47 -0400 Randy Bush randy@localhost wrote:

>> OTOH, I'd hate to see the same mistakes (that seemed reasonable at the
>> time) that were made in the v4 sunrise period be repeated in v6, like:
>> 
>> * too small assignments for customers forcing NAT in use,
> 
> v4 sunrise had too BIG, not too small, assignments.  hence all the
> underpopulated As abd Bs.  it took a major war, cidrd, to fix that.

I would argue, perhaps foolishly, that an assignment that is 1/4294967296
of the theoretical space available is sensible if done to any organisation
large enough that it today, with the present routing infrastructure, is an
autonomous system, and further, that this is much more sensible than the
sunrise practice of handing out 1/65536 of the available space to just
about anyone. (which *was* stupid, I agree, even though my present employer
benefited greatly from this.)

The practice is similar, yes, but the world surrounding it has changed. 

> and yes your point holds; we're doing it again.
> those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Yes, but if pain is to be avoided in some place, one must decide where to
move it instead. As long as multi6 is working we need an interim solution. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson         Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC
                        MN1334-RIPE

Attachment: pgp00002.pgp
Description: PGP signature