[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 ]
Stefan Camilleri
stefan.camilleri at maltanet.net
Tue Jun 13 08:50:53 CEST 2006
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org] > Sent: It-Tnejn, 12 ta' Ġunju 2006 18:00 > To: Stephen Camilleri > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] > 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy) > > Stefan, > > On Jun 11, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Stefan Camilleri wrote: > > Hence my submissions in this forum. Us small fry rarely get > the chance > > to globe trot to the various voting events! > > RIPE-NCC uses in-person voting to determine policies? Thanks for that. It does not seem well advertised but that's my problem I guess. I'll keep an eye open on this. > >> When do you expect to provide v6 services to your customers? > > Bottom line is I do not know. > > Remember, the world ends on Dec 21, 2012 (according to the > Mayans and Geoff Huston). Presumably, you'll want to begin > offering v6 service sometime before that... > I got a different date on that even though RIPE policies permitting I'd still want to offer v6 within less than 4 years. > > My customers have not yet requested it so how can I plan for any > > numbers. > > It is called "marketing projections". I see. So my hunch was right. Just throw in a bunch of numbers and keep on kidding ourselves > > 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. > I guess I don't see the big deal in coming up with a plan. > If, by some chance, you don't meet the plan you specify, you > can simply return the v6 space you were allocated, no? If > you have allocated address space to customers, I would > imagine RIPE-NCC could be convinced to give you a bit of > extra time. (Perhaps that's a good place for policy revision?) > Exactly the point. THAT would be an intelligent policy so why all the fuss about wanting to retain the current policy! > > (and who came up with this /48 assinment chunk anyway???) > > The same folks who brought you a maximum of 4096 entries in > the default-free zone. > > > With some reasonable policies in > > place there is room for everyone without fragmenting routing space > > Fragmentation of the routing space occurs for two major reasons: > multiple allocations from RIRs and traffic engineering. > While the RIRs have some control over the first, it is the > ISPs that are in control of the second. To date, there are > quite a few more specifics announced in IPv4. Since IPv6 > doesn't provide any additional mechanisms for TE, why > wouldn't more specifics be announced in IPv6? > > > and with > > practically little to no one needing to ever apply for a /32 > > allocation within lifetimes. > > You are aware, of course, that /19s and /20s of IPv6 address > space have already been allocated, right? It'll be > interesting to see how many more specifics get announced out > of those allocations... Yes. I was aware of that. Unfortunately IMHO, a bad start in the v6 allocation process.. But what's done is done. > > > That is .... if the /48 and /64 assignment policies can ever be > > re-written. > > That's a different policy proposal. > > >> 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. > > Fascinating. Truly awesome ... I'm doing my best to smile :-| > > Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask. > > Despite promises to the contrary, the IPng working group. > > Rgds, > -drc >
- 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 ]