[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

All,

Maybe some info to put this discussion in context.


1)      Current Ipv6 allocations
I made a distribution of Ipv6 allocations made by RIPE until now :
Most are /32, but you see a few allocations bigger than /32, up to /19.

/19         2
/20         2
/21         2
/22         2
/23         1
/24         2
/25         1
/26         3
/27         2
/28         1
/31         3
/32         1580
/33         51
/34         51
/35         102

This means that some LIR did a request with an address plan that justifies the bigger allocation.
I might expect that most of them are not based on 6rd deployments.
The biggest ones have been allocated in 2004, 2005, 2006.

Conclusion : Even without 6rd some LIR can justify the allocation of big IPv6 allocations.
I would expect that they have some vision on how they will use this big allocation in their network(s).
Because of this I'm not in favour of temporary allocations for migration using 6rd.


2)      Current LIR

Today we have less than 7000 LIR in the RIPE region. (source : draft RIPE NCC charging scheme)
Around 1650 LIR are Medium or bigger.
Around 330 of these are Large or bigger.
Less than 70 are Extra Large.

These Large or Extra Large LIR have several 100.000 or millions of customers and multiple allocations

Based on this info I see no issue that the IPRA (IP Resource Analyst) can allocate a bigger allocation than /32 based on a realistic address plan and good justification. Justification can be 6rd in a first phase and  something else in a later phase.
No need for special policy, just follow the existing Ipv6 address policy.

Do you think that more than 1000 LIR will apply for an allocation bigger than /32 in the coming 3 years ?

Marc Neuckens
Belgacom

**** DISCLAIMER ****
http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20091201/472ca34d/attachment.html>