Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocationCriteria

["Cameron Gray (RIPE Address Policy WG)" <]

Collective,

This originated from a thread I started on ipv6-ops...

As the archives seem to bear out shim6/mhap/multi6 or whatever the new 
*thing* will be is not ready.

We (uk.netegral) have a /32 already (2001:4bf0::) however many of the 
recipients of sub-allocations will be using the resources in conjunction 
with their other providers.

My, now somewhat aging, e-mail to lir-help asked what happens to LIRs 
that cannot get/justify/plan for 200 /48s their reply was simple: get it 
off another LIR.  This now leads into a problem with routing policies: 
if /32s are only to be allowed in the backbone, how doe these sub-lir 
allocations get announced.

My idea is to simply allow internetwork /48 to be announced to the 
backbone, or aggregates thereof (i.e. to adjacent /48s for the same ASN 
as a /47 and so on...).  I know the first response will be that this 
will grow the routing table infinitely and I agree, however with 629-ish 
from my view there isn't much of a table to speak of.

Are there any considerations I'm missing, why can't IPv6 prefixes be 
treated in the same way as IPv4?  I'm not advocating announcing every 
/64 from here to timbuktu but otherwise I can't see anything to allow 
the "little guys" from actually benefitting therefore deploying IPv6.

One of our customers has a /48 allocation and is now refusing to issue 
to customers as he can't announce this to the second upstream (they 
refuse to pass it on as it isn't a /32), they have also hit peers that 
refused the prefix as it hit their "this route is internal" prefix filter.

I assume the end goal here is to encourage the uptake of v6 not hinder it...

Can this disparity in policies not be addressed using current protocols 
and technologies simply by increasing the allowable boundary for the 
backbone?  This has a neat side effect of not having to alter the 
issuing policy for /32s :) .