[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

> > It seems that a number of people at the helm of the 
> Internet decision 
> > process need some exposure to realities of the ISP business 
> and more 
> > specifically to the issues related to the introduction of IPv6.
> 
> In the context of IP address policies, you, as part of the 
> RIPE community, are the one "at the helm of the Internet 
> decision process"  
> -- it is you and the rest of the RIPE community that are 
> creating the policies.  If you need more exposure to reality... :-)
> 

Hence my submissions in this forum. Us small fry rarely get the chance to globe
trot to the various voting events!


> > We have over /17 of IPv4 address space allocated. We have 
> over 20,000 
> > broadband customers and well over 200 clients that would 
> benefit from 
> > Ipv6 assignments and who now either have a /24 to /28 or 
> use NAT. We 
> > also operate a small transit network and are linked to a major 
> > European Tier1 provider. Finally we are part of an Ipv6 task force 
> > trying to determine the future direction of IPv6 rollout. But 
> > basically I CANNOT have a plan, at this stage for /48 on 
> Ipv6. Its WAY 
> > too early. On the other hand we are upgrading our kit as 
> part of the 
> > normal hardware lifetime updates and we consider this the 
> right time 
> > to go for Ipv6 peering. Like Tim in his submission I could 
> EASILY put 
> > a plan together contradicting my current reality... But why 
> should I 
> > lie to RIPE?
> 
> You shouldn't.  Just to be clear, you are saying you cannot 
> come up with plans that you believe represents a reasonable 
> approximation to what you believe your IPv6 needs will be for 
> your customers _in two years_?
> 
> When do you expect to provide v6 services to your customers?

Bottom line is I do not know. My customers have not yet requested it so how can
I plan for any numbers. Plus not all my network components are yet up to a fully
fledge rollout. For sure, however I'll have zero IPv6 networks unless I have
some sort of fantasy plan for 200 /48's (and who came up with this /48 assinment
chunk anyway???)


> > And one final thing, we're talking about IPv6.
> 
> Actually, since IPv6 followed IPv4's mistake of co-mingling 
> location with identity, we're really talking about routing 
> scalability.  Since
> IPv6 uses the exact same routing technology as IPv4, it isn't 
> too surprising that the same problems that we're experiencing 
> in IPv4 reoccur with IPv6.
> 
> > The addressing space that can allow 2000 addresses per 
> square meter on 
> > the planet as some of the current cliches go...
> 
> This piece of misinformation is probably among the most damaging the
> IPv6 community has inflicted on itself.  While theoretically 
> true in the pedantic sense, in reality it is pure 
> misdirection and completely irrelevant.

I agree here. There is a lot of misinformation and silly cliches doing the
rounds. However one thing is certainly true. With some reasonable policies in
place there is room for everyone without fragmenting routing space and with
practically little to no one needing to ever apply for a /32 allocation within
lifetimes. That is .... if the /48 and /64 assignment policies can ever be
re-written.


> > We're established and qualified in the business but I have to beg, 
> > grovel or lie to get  this allocation!!
> 
> Dramatic, but I suspect a bit of hyperbole.
> 
> I'm honestly curious: have you applied to RIPE for IPv6 
> address space and been rejected?

Glad you've got the point ;-) .. And yes, I did apply and yes I was rejected.

> 
> > THAT is confusing
> 
> If it is confusing, it is probably because you've drunk the 
> IPv6 Forum cool aid.  IPv6 did not address (pun intended) the 
> routing scalability issue.  As such, the same constraints 
> that impact address usage (note: not address availability) in 
> IPv4 apply to IPv6.  What is confusing to me is that network 
> operators of today seem so eager to recreate the problems 
> that nearly caused the Internet to break in the mid-nineties. 
>  However, the nice thing about history repeating itself is 
> that you know what to expect...

Funny but in my ignorance I am unaware of IPv6 Forum cool aid or whatever ...
Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask.

> Rgds,
> -drc
>