[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:31:54AM +0000, Silvia Hagen wrote:
> There is a widely adopted rule that all address conservation mechanisms should be removed from IPv6 address plans.

You can't do that on a RIR level - if the IPRAs were to hand out a /16 for
everyone that comes with a nice diagram, we'd actually run out of IPv6 soon.

Of course a /16 is excaggerating a bit - but I have seen my share of 
network plans made totally without understanding for bits, hierarchy or
actual *networking*, resulting in "oh, for these 500 sites, we definitely 
need a /24!" (and "oh, for all the electronic passports for 100 million 
citizens, we must have a /19!") - and thus it is good practice to have 
someone more experienced in addressing review the plan and see whether 
it makes sense.

(Just to point out the obvious - from the early days of /35s I have been
fighting for more liberal IPv6 allocation policies, but it still needs to
be done with a solid technical understanding, and not with "I like large
numbers, so get me a /15 please!" - this is the balance we need to find,
or otherwise we'll find us faster than expected in the "oops, fp 001 is
gone!" land)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150724/ba325f83/attachment.sig>