Ha: Re: [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): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dmitriy V Menzulskiy
DMenzulskiy at beeline.ru
Thu Mar 20 11:23:10 CET 2008
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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20080320/d931e775/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]