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

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

Michael.Dillon@localhost wrote:
> If there is going to be a route in the global routing table
> then it is better for that route to be a /32 rather than
> to ambiguously allow for longer prefixes. Therefore, RIPE, and
> all other RIRs, should give organizations a /32 if they intend
> to announce routes in the global IPv6 routing table. 
> This does not waste IPv6 space since a /32 is a very small fraction
> of the IPv6 address space. In fact, it is the same as an IPv4
> /32 when measured as a percentage of the total IPv4 address space.
I appreciate that, but how then does an organisation that can only 
qualify for a /48 from x upstream participate?

Many Hosting providers (rather than connectivity providers) are going to 
end up shafted by that ideal.  Or are we simply moving everybody up a 
subnet, i.e. LIRs now get /24...?  Either way we end up with the same 
argument, just with longer or shorter prefixes.

Or are we lobbying for the criteria as a LIR to be relaxed...?

Hosting suppliers are seemingly getting the raw end of this deal and 
seen as IPv6 will be de fact one day and they need redundancy and 
multi-path, etc.  I would think now would be the time to accomodate them.

--

Best regards,

Cameron Gray
Director, Netegral Limited
www.netegral.co.uk | cgray@localhost
0871 277 NTGL (6845)