Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:36:15AM +0100, Stephen Burley wrote:
> I would like to add although we are not a supernational registry and all
> that implies ;) we have the same issue. We have been allocated our start up
> space in IPv6 which is fine for now but would it not be better to be more
> forward thinking when allocating IPv6 space and allocate enough space to
> aggregate fully throughout the EMEA region and so implement the best
> possible aggregation. This is not just a cry for more space because we are
> big so we deserve it, we are seriously looking to a time when IPv6 is used
> in anger and we have to do real aggregation throughout EMEA. We do not want
> to assign IPv6 on a per LIR basis, rather sub-allocate IPv6 space to our
> current LIR structure since we are all in the same network it makes sense.
> BTW we are currently writing our internal IPv6 deployment policy.

As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings,
one thing that was voiced repeatedly was 

  "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself
   is not enough"

(considering hierarchical strutures - either due to multinational
networks, or due to hierarchies of resellers having re-selling customers
themselves - 13 bits to work in is just not enough).

Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start
space*(!).  It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are 
being way too conservative.  Old IPv4 habits...?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299