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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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: </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 ]