[address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:50:51PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
> > > so have a new way to get it in
> > > a few pieces.  given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we
> > > don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called
> > > stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise.
> > 
> > So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way
> > forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"?
> 
> I interpret it as "we are driving in fog and don't know the road ahead, lets
> better wear a safety belt". And I do not see why assigning larger blocks to
> the RIRs would speed up the IPv6 deployment. 
> 
> I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the
> RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20
> years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need
> around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something
> that does not end in IR at all?

Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this.

The /6s is *reserved* for a respective RIR, and will be used if it needs
to be.  If a RIR never outgrows its /12, the remaining 65 /12s inside
the /6 will be never touched.

The benefit in carving up the space now is that each RIR will effectively
work from one contiguous block (ignoring the 2001::/23 swamp), thus 
enabling people (who *have* expressed interest in this) to be able to
apply filters (of any sort) by region.


Besides this, I don't really see a "we will have 150 NIRs on global
level" structure - maybe NIRs below the RIR (as APNIC does it, which
is a can of worms on its own), but not on global level - such a structure
will never be able to come up with anything resembling a global policy
(see the last IPv6 policy discussion - it's hard enough with 5 communities
that need to come up with something common).


> We should keep organizational scalability in mind as much as technical
> scalability. Both are equally important, so ignoring one of the two seems
> like a mistake to me. I would even go so far as to say that in the future
> most likely the technical scalability issues regarding Address assignment
> will be smaller then they are today (by looking at the technical
> improvements regarding possible routing table size over the last 20 years).

So what do you propose?  Keep the /23-allocation process, which is
really annoying larger networks today?

Please stop argueing "let's not do that!" without proposals how to 
achieve the goal: fix the current ICANN -> RIR allocation mess, *AND*
build a system that can at least try to achieve "one IPv6 block per LIR"
even for LIRs that grow over time (and for that, you need *lots* of 
address space at the RIR level, to keep some space between LIR 
allocations).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  65398  (60210)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299