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/[email protected]/
[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
Mon Nov 30 17:43:51 CET 2009
-> this is a good thing, give them the address space <- Managing various SP prefix is a burden for large operators or might even be a show-stopper for 6RD rollout. Cheers, Florian 2009/11/30 Gert Doering <gert at space.net>: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:45:52AM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Ahem, future innovation with IPv6 (whatever that is, beyound disabling >> insecure protocol features) needs to take VSLM into account. It's >> also likely that the requirement that all unicast addresses most be >> within at least a /64 will be eventually overturned because those bits >> could be used in a more useful fashion. > > This is well out of scope for any address policy discussion going on today. > > When and if the IETF decides that non-/64-subnets are a desirable feature, > it makes sense to discuss the consequences on address policy here - before > that, it's a waste of bits. > > Please let's be focussed on the question at hand - which side do we want > to err to? > > - be very conservative in giving out IPv6 address space, risking that > IPv6 will just never take off - for fear of running out of space > "if we happen to very radically move the boundary by 8 bits multiple > times" > > - be very liberal in giving out IPv6 address space, risking that we run > out of FP001 sooner than expected, and that we will have to do a more > restrictive policy later on - but doing our best to actually get IPv6 > out and deployed > > Whatever we decide, history will tell us that we have been wrong in > our predictions... > > Given the original question: as far as I understood the question, the > RIPE NCC IPRAs consider the request to be inside the boundaries permitted > by policy, if a bit larger than "typical". So we don't really need a > formal policy change here, just guidance to the IPRAs "this is a good > thing, give them the address space" or "this is not a good thing, refuse!". > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 > > 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 > >
- 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 ]