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

I oppose this proposal (can not tell more, than James has told ).

Best regards,

Dmitry V. Menzulskiy (DM3740-RIPE)

address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net написано 19.03.2008 18:09:33:

> > 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20080320/d931e775/attachment.html>