Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

[Andy Davidson andy@localhost]

On 15 Jan 2008, at 22:18, Elmar K. Bins wrote:

> timothy.clarke@localhost (Timothy Clarke) wrote:
> > From the little I've seen / read regarding IPv6 I get the impression
> > that people are starting to think of a IPv6 /48 in the same light  
> > as a
> > IPv4 /24.
> > As such a /56 will fall into the same hole as longer IPv4 prefix's in
> > that no one wants to carry them.
> Same here. I'd not bother with a /56. I recommend using a /48 and  
> nothing
> else. Same as for "special use v6 PI" - and the size has been  
> chosen for
> a reason there.
There would need to be no mnt-lower or similar, to prevent people  
using /48 PI when they should really be becoming members of RIPE and  
getting a /48 PA.
I'm still thinking about whether I feel this is a good idea.  If v4- 
>v6 migration is going to work, then everyone who has some v4 PI is  
*probably* going to need some v6 PI.  Perhaps sorting out the "does  
need" from the "should just get a slice of an upstream's PA" is going  
to be arduous, time-consuming, and possibly soul crushing, so I'm  
erring towards thinking that perhaps this is a good idea, it just  
needs some community refinement.
Andy