[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Jun 27 08:21:50 CEST 2007
Hi, On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 06:35:20PM -0400, Leo Vegoda wrote: > However the IPv6 allocation policy is revised, it needs to work well > with a PI assignment policy. If the only criterion for receiving a / > 32 IPv6 allocation is that you become a RIPE NCC member then you > create a situation where networks wanting PI space must demonstrate a > need for anything more than a /48 but anyone willing to pay ?3300 can > get thousands of times as much space without needing to show any need. Indeed. But given the past 7 years of history, we can't seem to come to a rule set that is more complex than "be LIR, ask for it" that people will agree upon. In IPv4 land, we had entry barriers for LIR allocations for a while, and that didn't work, so we're back to "be LIR, ask for it, get PA space" - and that model seems to work quite well. > One of the goals for IPv6 address space management is: > > 3.6. Fairness > > All policies and practices relating to the use of public address > space > should apply fairly and equitably to all existing and potential > members > of the Internet community, regardless of their location, > nationality, > size, or any other factor. > > I am not sure that this goal can be met if the only barrier to a > block 65,636 times as large as a /48 PI assignment is an annual > payment to the RIPE NCC. One of the differences is a different tag on the address block ("this is for me only" vs. "this is for me and my customers") - PI vs. PA. OTOH, I can't really understand this excitement about the size of the address block. A /48 is large enough for all but the biggest "end user" networks - and a /32 is still fairly small regarding the total amount of /32s in FP 001. If the numbers are so huge, people should really stop worrying about "this guy got a bigger one than I did!!!". Thus I'm not worrying very much about bit haggling (this is IPv6, not IPv4), but about - general availability of IPv6 (-> make PA space *easy* to get) - pressure on the routing system (-> *one* prefix per LIR, if at all possible, and some incentive to not use PI for "normal end sites") Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070627/4e42b5eb/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]