[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

> If this proposal reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time 
> operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 
> assignment registered in the RIPE Database.

> We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> before 16 April 2008.


I strongly oppose on a number of counts:

Not every inetnum holder in the RIPE database justifies a PI IPv4 
assignment, why on earth should they receive a PI IPv6 assignment?

Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them.

Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on 
giving them even if they had a use for it.

Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a 
single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to 
entities when they have no need for them.

The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes.





Now, I would suggest dishing out /48 PI IPv6 space to entities who request 
them, and have genuine plans to announce them (making a one off and a 
yearly charge for this would be nice, for the sake of conserving routing 
table size rather than conserving available address space at this stage).

This shouldn't cause the same amount of growth in the routing tables that 
dishing out /24s of v4 PI space has done since /48 is enough subnets to 
last (hopefully forever), thus a single entity announcing PI from a single 
location should only ever need a /48 (whereas a /56 might be pushing it).

I'd also suggest marking a block of v6 space as never to be allocated for 
the purposes of global routability, but for the sake of internal 
networking for the sake of global uniqness. Theres little point in making 
this a /48 rather than a /56 since aggregation isn't an issue if they're 
not going to be globally routable anyway.

Regards
James