[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Apr 17 22:25:53 CEST 2009
Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 03:27:11PM +0200, Jerzy Pawlus wrote: > > So I think this discussion should move towards: > > > > - find examples of networks that have problems with the current policy, > > and try to figure out common criteria > > Gert, I don't think that at the moment we can find more examples other than > you mentioned in your letter, ie. Telcos and NREN networks. > To some extent it understandable. Big ISP need more time to prepare > themselves, especially in the access area. NREN networks tend to see > problems rather sooner than later. Others will follow as Dami said > "when they face the problem". > On the other hand the interest in and discussion on this matter is > surpisingly small. Actually, "Big Telcos" and "NRENs" seem to be able to work with the current IPv6 policy fairly well. "Big Telcos" seem to be able to get up to a /20, and I see a number of NRENs with IPv6... > > - formulate criteria for "additional allocations" that can get > > (rough) consensus > > As you clearly stated in one of your letters it almost impossible > to apply HD-Ratio to a big ISP. To succesfully run such a business you must > assume some hierarchy in addressing scheme. Any hierarchy leads to address > waste anf if you stick to this you will never reach HD-Ratio. > This is a 'real life' Please read up on how HD ratio works. The whole point about HD ratio is to handle the additional waste caused exactly due to *hierarchy* in addressing. IPv4 has a fixed 80% usage ratio. IPv6 is much more flexible here. > If not to big ISP where else we can apply HD-ratio? Other LIRs will never > reach it. The conclusion is rather surpising. We can silently drop > HD-Ratio criteria and nothing wrong will happen. > In IPv6 world HD-Ratio seems not to work as well as in IPv4 I don't understand what you are trying to tell us. There is no HD-ratio in IPv4. There is HD-ratio in IPv6 (and whether it works or not remains to be seen, as I don't know any ISP that has filled up his IPv6 allocation and has come back to the RIPE NCC for more space). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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/20090417/16eb8c9a/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]