[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Frotzler
florian at frotzler.priv.at
Tue Dec 1 13:16:27 CET 2009
Jim, I can tell you that being forced to implement multiple SP prefixes might be a show-stopper for a numerous of ISPs to implement 6RD, including Swisscom, this is fact. It is a huge operational burden, especially for the IT stack, and means $$$ needed to be spend. So do we want to hamper the v6 rollout because we like to conserve some bits in an almost endless address space? Cheers, Florian 2009/12/1 Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>: > On 1 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Remco van Mook wrote: > >> If we decide to hand out /24s to 6RD and we think that’s not a waste of >> address space (even though nobody has been able to give me an satisfactory >> answer I’m willing to throw in the towel) make that a permanent >> allocation, >> not a temporary one. The pretense that people will actually hand back that >> prefix is, let’s say, not consistent with current experiences in IPv4. >> Once >> it’s out of the bag it’s out of the bag, never to return. > > Remco, all, I think these two issues should be separated. > > You're quite right to underline the absurdity of a policy discussion which > is centred around "temporary" allocations. Once the space is given out, it's > gone and will never be returned. So I agree wholeheartedly that the policy > language should only concern itself with permanent allocations. If there's > some other policy that requires temporary allocations for something, then > there should be a clear time component to that, like the RIR reclaims the > space from the LIR N months after its allocation. Not that that would apply > to these 6RD allocations... > > As for the mechanics of /24s for 6RD, I'm still confused and uncertain. It's > not clear why so much space is needed and if such allocations are wasteful > or not. They don't look like an efficient use of address space. Then again, > almost no IPv6 allocations can be space-efficient... [For some definition of > that term.] My main concerns are how many LIRs will need/want these /24s, > the precedents this sets and the impact they have on the overall supply of > v6 address space. > > I fear we could be treating the abundance of IPv6 space the same way as a > lottery winner might spend their money in a bar or casino: a *lot* of fun > while it lasts. >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]