[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
leo vegoda
leo at ripe.net
Tue Jun 13 16:02:24 CEST 2006
Michael, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote: >> /64 was for stateless autoconfig (EUI-64). >> /48 was to make it easier for folks to move between ISPs. Since all >> allocations to end sites would be the same size, all that would need >> to change would be the upper 48 bits. > > In particular, this means that moving between > ISPs does not require you to change your internal > network topology. Since topology changes can > involve a lot of equipment purchase and rewiring, > this levels the competitive field for IPv6 access > services. You can design your network with the > future in mind and then grow into your topology. > That is not possible in today's IPv4 world where > everybody is concerned with not wasting addresses. I think it's worth clarifying that RIPE's IPv4 policy specifically states that one-to-one renumbering for valid assignments are fine. The relevant text can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#assign_renumbering Individual ISPs may choose to be assign addresses in a more conservative way than is strictly required. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]