[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On 26.10.11 15:44, "Michael Adams" <madams at netcologne.de> wrote:



>But we want to do native v6 and we need additional bits to make the
>v6 pools on our access routers big enough for all our residential
>customers
>from the beginning. Fortunately the policy text itself is not mentioning
>6RD
>and so it solves our problem too.

+1.

Our network model is based on a core network that is owned and operated by
Altibox, and several partners networks that is operated by Altibox and
owned by the partner.

6RD is a method we are considering for IPv6 deployment, mostly because our
partners might not have the budgets to upgrade their infrastructure in
thread with our IPv6 deployment. Having many prefixes, a multi-domain 6RD
setup will be a hassle, both for prefix management at traffic management.

However, this is not our prime reason to support this. We support this
policy change mostly because it gives us the address space to needed to do
good address aggregation in our partners networks. With a /32, we need to
break down the allocations to smaller prefixes, hence making aggregation
more difficult. The size of each partner vary greatly in number of end
customers, and a larger prefix will help us keep the aggregations simple
and unified.

Best Regards 
Ragnar Anfinsen
 
Senior Architect CPE
Netinfrastructure
Technology and Innovation
Altibox AS 

Phone: +47 51 90 80 00
Phone direct: +47 51 90 82 35
Mobile +47 93 48 82 35
E-mail: ragnar.anfinsen at altibox.no
Video phone: ragnar.anfinsen.altibox at video.altibox.net
Skype: ragnar_anfinsen
www.altibox.no