[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: ... 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 20 16:38:42 CEST 2006
> > On 8-jun-2006, at 12:31, Stefan Camilleri wrote: > > >> Note it says "a plan". An organization incapable of > coming up with > >> _a plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant > problems than not > >> having IPv6 space. > > [...] > > > 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. > > You must have SOME kind of plan if you want to get an IPv6 > block in your hands now... This is what I wrote for a > customer for their IPv6 request, which was granted without > further questions within days: > > #[REQUIRED INFORMATION]# > > confirmation: we'll conform to the policy. > > #[INSERT SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS]# > > We currently have several customers who have asked for IPv6 > service. We expect to give out several /48s to colo customers > immediately, around 15 within a year and 50 or so within two > years. We currently don't have IPv6 capability for our DSL > and dial-up infrastructure, but expect to add IPv6 here and > start giving out /48s to customers later this year, after > we've installed a new router at [...]. We'll then be rolling > out IPv6 first to existing customers (25 after a year) but we > also expect that we can interest new customers in more > advanced capabilities such as IPv6, multicast and IPv6 > multicast, reaching the required 200 /48s in the second year. May I ask if this is realistic? Its so vague and I sincerely am a bit surprised that you or your customer has so many IPv6 requests from his clients. Still if that's what it takes to keep RIRs happy... > > And one final thing, we're talking about IPv6. The addressing space > > that can allow 2000 addresses per square meter on the > planet as some > > of the current cliches go... We're established and qualified in the > > business but I have to beg, grovel or lie to get this allocation!! > > THAT is confusing > > Getting the addresses is not the issue, occupying a slot at > the top of the routing hierarchy is. This means you take up > an entry in the FIB tables of all IPv6 DFZ routers world > wide, which then all have to provide electricity to determine > whether the packets flowing through them match your prefix. Yes. Maybe thay will necessitate 5 extra CPU cycles.. Let me see.. Maybe an extra 1uwatt of power..Hmmm like 32Joules per annum Please.... ;-)) >
- 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: ... 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]