[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ole Troan
ot at cisco.com
Fri Oct 28 11:30:54 CEST 2011
Ahmed, > In reality RIPE will be giving up a finite resource for implementing one particular type of a transition protocol, i.e. 6rd. finite => there are 67 million /29s. and there is what < 15000 ISPs in the world? given that we only use 1/8 of the IPv6 address space for this model of addressing. do we get it wrong, we have 7 more tries. the biggest hurdle we have now is to get IPv6 deployed; if we don't succeed in that it doesn't much matter that we have conserved address space that no-one uses... ;-) cheers, Ole > > Can't the response be go back to your vendor and ask them to implement a different transition protocol that doesn't waste address space ? After all, there are many such protocols out there. > > -Ahmed > > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:20 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <4EA67B94.2090305 at go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 10/25/11 9:44 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: >> Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant >> change in allocation policy. >> >> As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 >> assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents >> v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented >> as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out >> IPv6 to end users. > > Dear Ahmed, > > We are aware of many similar technologies that would fulfill the same or > similar goal, but what we are doing here is just listen to complains and > requests from the field and try to make deployment of IPv6 (native or as > service in this case) as easy as possible with this change of the policy > proposal. > > Reality usually wins :) > > Cheers, Jan > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed at tamkien.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:44 AM > To: "RIPE Address Policy" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal > >> Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy. >> >> As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users. >> >> -Ahmed >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200 >> From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal >> (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) >> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005 at go6.si> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a >>> /20. >> >> it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :) >> >> can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S >> >> cheers, Jan >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]