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

 
> 
> 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....  ;-))

>