[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Jun 25 13:08:45 CEST 2004
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Jon Lawrence wrote: > On Friday 25 June 2004 08:59, Gert Doering wrote: > > > > But I think the whole point of the discussion is that the rule is pretty > > pointless. > > > I agree. > Saying that we *plan* to make IPv6 available to 200 end sites within 2 years > is pretty easy. The fact that we currently have no where near 200 end sites > could be viewed as irrelevant as far as planniing is concerned. > This in my view makes a joke of the rule. Even a brand new LIR with only half > a dozen end sites at present could easily present a case for *planning* to > have 200 over the next 2 years. > > It was suggested that if you don't/can't reach the 200 rule then you should > take address space from your upstream. How many datacenters are going to be > willing to do that. We'd like to be able to start offering IPv6 services for > our datacenter, there's no way we're going to take a single upstream. A > datacenter needs to be multihomed with different providers (at least in my > opinion). I suppose I could assign a /48 to each customer in the datacenter > (to reach the magic 200) but most customers have only *one* server, so that > would be a big waste of space. Instead I'd simply assign a single /48 to the > datacenter and that would be aggregated by us on our multiple links, but by > doing this we'd never reach 200 end sites. > > I personally think we should get rid of the 200 rule completely. > Saying something along the lines of: > An LIR should provide IPv6 services (to end user sites) and advertise an > aggregated route within 12 months of receiving the allocation. > > Regards, > Jon 1. repeating myself... "200 rule"... IMHO to dropped as soon as possible. 2. please drop the "conservation" thinggy... ~"big waste of space" one server means one LAN = /64, just like a p2p connection is also a LAN = /64. someone might disagree on this... ;-) if you have more than one LAN, that means a /48. if you have a customer with 2 servers, if they are on the same LAN, just put a /64 on top of the table. if he wants them separated (2 vlans), give him a /48 and simply route his 2 /64s. ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (140068/465), naming (millions) and... people!"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]