[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?

Hi,

 On 10 May, Gert Doering wrote:
 | Hi,
 | 
 | On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
 | > >I agree with that.  Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be
 | > >fairly easy.
 | > 
 | > Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and 
 | > just stick with the /48 assignments only?
 | 
 | That's what this discussion is about: do we want to change RFC3177 (and
 | thus, the RIPE IPv6 assignment guidelines) to recommend something else?

==> Here is my humble contribution to this debate.

I guess that the goal should not be to replace RFC3177 by something
completely different but rather by something with fewer constraints.

We can indeed play on 3 rules :

- adjust the HD ratio to 0.94 (I don't have the impression there's any
  objection to that among folks who have already expressed their
  opinion)

- adjust the default prefix size for environment containing more that
  one router. The /48 default size should be reviewd but it should
  keep being applied to corporate networks because the number of links
  may potentially grow beyond 256. Conversely, there's nothing _REAL_
  today that indicates that the default common soho/home network would
  consume more than 100 links. So respective to DHCPv6 Prefix
  delegation success rate, a /56 should be more than enough for the
  _DEFAULT CASE_. In case, a soho/home network administrator knows
  that they may hit that limit, the policy should allow them to get a
  /48 withought any bureaucratic procedures/delays. As for the problem
  of renumbering from a /56 to /48 for an unmanaged home network (for
  instance), I don't think it is really a too complex process. I hope
  that by the time such a problem may occurr, technical solutions for
  smooth renumbering will be already in place. Although, I can hear
  Jordi's arguments about the numerous potential uses of IPv6 in a
  home network, I don't believe it would apply for a significant
  portion of the average IPv6 users within the coming 10 years (don't
  ask me why 10 years and not 5 or 20 years ;-)). Thus going with a
  default /56 for the _DEFAULT_ case should save quite a large address
  space while IPv6 deployment tries to find a cruse speed... 

Apart from that, a /60 for a network containig only one router seems
to be quite comfortable. I'm temptd to say that in that case, a
reservation up to a /56 MAY be done by the ISP in order to expect the
customer's network growth and ease renumebering and routing.

We have been working with RFC3177 guidelines for a few years so we can
afford give a try to slightly different alternative.

Regards,

Mohsen.

 | 
 | > I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 
 | > should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has 
 | > to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-)
 | 
 | Yep.
 | 
 | Gert Doering
 |         -- NetMaster
 | -- 
 | Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  71007  (66629)
 | 
 | SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
 | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
 | D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234