[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Dec 6 11:55:39 CET 2005
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:42:09AM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: > > We analysed the requests and questions we have received and presented > the details at RIPE 50. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-ap-ipv6nu > mbers.pdf > > mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-50/address-policy-1.wmv > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html > (section F) > > Basically, ~2% of requests did not end in address space being > registered. We don't know how many requests are not sent in. Thanks Leo, very interesting. We noted one knockon effect of RIPE policy. I don't know the full details, but essentially for a tunnel broker service we wanted to offer a /48 to end sites out of an existing /32, but were unable to do so because the 'paperwork' to be sent on to RIPE-NCC for each /48 was needed in advance for the ISP owning the /32 to allocate a (say) /40 to the broker service, and that added a notable hurdle. So we ended up using a /48 for the broker and allocating /56 and /64 blocks. Is this the way it's meant to be, or should the ISP owning the /32 only need to report usage when asking for more space itself? -- Tim/::1
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]