This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): Ha: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Thu Mar 20 08:31:45 CET 2008
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, James A. T. Rice wrote: >> 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. > ... > Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on > giving them even if they had a use for it. Well, this would build up pressure to get it announced and accepted, at least in some parts of the network. IMHO the very minimum required is assigning all of these from a single aggregated block where everything is assigned has the same prefixlength in order to ease ISPs' filtering decisions. > 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). I pretty much agree with James here, on all counts. If some version of this proposal were to go forward, I'd suggest /48's. And I would explicitly want the policy to specify that these /48's will be assigned from a single superblock where no other (other prefixlength) assignments or allocations are made. That way the ISPs have easier time to build their filters to either accept these as /48's, /56's or whatever (and no more specifics) or reject them completely. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): Ha: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]