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

If I take a look at the latest CIDR report, we have about 33k different AS
numbers in the current routing table. Assuming that 1 AS = 1 LIR, just for
simplicity, can someone explain me why the business models could ever change
in the next 30 to 60 years that we will have 2 million LIRs? And even if we
have 2.000.000 LIRs in 2070, I am quite sure IETF would open a new FP range
at that time for another 2.000.000 LIRs without questioning anything.
Contrary to that I can easily imagine that some LIRs might increase the
number of endsites by some factors because of new business models. So they
would then need to ask for larger allocations, which pollutes the routing
table and we are again in the same situation as today.

Cheers,
Florian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2009 17:29
An: Florian Frotzler
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Florian Frotzler wrote:
> Sorry, I am not following, what do you mean with "the" connectivity model?

Apologies, I should have said 'allocation' instead of 'connectivity'.  You
appear to be assuming a small number of LIRs because that's what we have
now.  Given the proliferation of PI allocation policies and the likelihood
(at least in my mind) of increased dependence on IP connectivity as a basic
service implying less tolerance for even momentary outages resulting in
increased demand for multi-homing, it is unclear to me that the current
model will hold.

> @second: you are talking about the "001" FP space,

Yes.

> I see plenty of reserved space if needed,

You may see it, but to put that space into play would require the IETF to
tell IANA that another FP has been specified as global unicast since we blew
through 001 because we were allocating 1,099,511,627,776 /64s to every ISP
that asked.  Might be a bit of a hard sell.

> also again the scope of the discussion is limited to ISPs
> who need the address space to do 6RD or similar transition methods, no one
> is asking to change the minimum allocation size to /24. I don´t assume
that
> millions of ISPs will do 6RD.

As has been pointed out by others, why bother accepting the minimum when you
can simply (and honestly) claim 6RD?

Regards,
-drc