[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 07:25:39 CEST 2011
Hi, On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:01, Dan Luedtke <maildanrl at googlemail.com> wrote: >> A 6RD allocation should be 100% 6RD and no other use of it should be allowed, so that it can easily be returned once the 6RD deployment is no longer in use. > I agree regarding allocations that were requested for use with 6RD. > However, LIR/ISP requesting space from "their own" /29 should not > require documentation when used for 6RD. For some reason, ISPs tend to > deploy 6RD inside "their own" /29 rather than requesting a new /2x. Requests for more space than /32 SHOULD require documentation, so your pretext I do not agree with. Moreover, it is easy and completely rational to, on your "subnet" lines, indicate if there is a 6RD subnet present in your plan/motivation. Additionally, it is very easy to subnet in such a way that 6RD is placed in the higher bits of the /29 or so, such that the space can be returned when no longer use. Admittedly, this gets more tricky with an initial allocation. >> That, or, roll native. ;) > I like the rolling native part :) > When it comes to mobile network, we might be stuck to transition > technologies forever(tm). There will be parts of the network that will > never be LTE only, like strange sensors in some (hopefully not mission > critical) infrastructure and things like that. So chances are, when > looking at mobile networks, that a 6RD deployment will never be > returned. :( See other email. > Best, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]