[address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"

On 14/11/2011 21:55, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Where does the /26 come from? Or to put it another way, assuming the
> basis for allocation policy is justified need, what need is considered
> so universal that no justification is required?

apparently 6rd.  Or the latest transition mechanism, except that it's such
a good address justification mechanism that you don't even need to mention
which transition mechanism you're planning to use, or even if you are
planning to use a transition mechanism at all.

I'm struggling to understand how this proposal meets the Conservation
section of the RIPE IPv6 allocation policy:

"Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space, address
policies should avoid unnecessarily wasteful practices. Requests for
address space should be supported by appropriate documentation and
stockpiling of unused addresses should be avoided."

It hardly takes much effort to mention to the RIPE NCC that your LIR is
applying for a /29 instead of a /32 because it intends to implement 6rd,
does it?  While I don't have a major problem with giving 3 extra bits of
space to implement 6rd, I do have a major problem with:

1. making this the default configuration, even for those LIRs who have no
intention of ever deploying 6rd or any other equivalent transition mechanism,

2. removal of the requirement to specify 6rd/other mechanism to justify the
extra space, and

3. allocating /26 by default.  102 bits of address space is obscenely
wasteful because it is very significantly more than most LIRs will ever
require in the lifetime of the universe (yes, I have worked out the scales
here).

Look, I don't mean to sound like a party pooper, but let's not lose the run
of ourselves here.  6rd has very limited deployment at present, and while
it shows a lot of promise as a potentially useful transition mechanism,
it's not yet at the stage where we should feel tempted to shower LIRs with
ridiculous quantities of address bits just because we're feeling a bit
inadequate about current ipv6 uptake.

I'd like to suggest that 2011-04 be changed so that LIRs can expand their
default /32 to a /29 iff they document a requirement for providing 6rd /
{another specified ipv6 transition mechanism which requires similar bits of
address space} to end-users.  Otherwise, a /32 will be assigned by default,
and the RIPE NCC can continue on with their current binary chop allocation
strategy.

Nick