[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mohacsi Janos
mohacsi at niif.hu
Mon Nov 30 09:27:33 CET 2009
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >>> There are only 2 reasons that I can see to write a special policy. >>> One is to encourage ISPs to assign /56 prefixes to customers, not >>> longer ones like /60. >> Or /60s vs. /64s. I think you may be a little optimistic if >> you think that /60 is the low end of the totem pole here. > > I don't believe that RIR policy should ever encourage ISPs > to assign customer sites a prefix longer than /56. In fact, > we really should discourage assigning anything other than > a /48 or a /56 because part of the benefit of IPv6 comes > from giving the customers a spacious number space in which > they can subnet. This also allows for greater portability, > i.e. I can switch providers without changing my network > architecture, or I can relocate to another country and know > that I will get the same prefix length assignment. > >> Case in point is that when Free first offered its IPv6 >> service, it did so within the /32 it had by giving /64s to >> all its customers. A few folks like myself complained, and >> they changed it only because they were able to get a large >> enough allocation from RIPE (which they had to go back and >> ask for). If that had not happened, it's not like Free would >> have ripped out its entire DSLAM infrastructure and upgraded >> it to offer a /60 or /56. The choice would have been /64 or >> nothing. Period. > > The point is that it did happen. RIPE did give them enough address > space to offer customers more than a /64. That is the way things > should be because there is no shortage of IPv6 address space. > > In fact, RIPE should refuse to give ISPs an allocation so small > that it forces them to offer customers anything longer than a > /56 prefix. > > >> I'd be perfectly fine with no new policy, as long as ISPs, >> even relatively small ones, do not delay IPv6 deployment over >> lack of obtainable space. > > Yet another reason why RIPE should be liberal with IPv6 space. > > In IPv4, a /32 will number one host. In IPv6, the same prefix > will provide many ISPs enough address space to last them 20 > to 50 years. In IPv4, a /24 is something that you assign to > customers and a /21 is a small ISP. Why should we be more > restrictive in IPv6? I can see no good reason to not hand out > ISPs a /24 or a /21 if they need it to make their IPv6 access > service work. > > Even though my employer, a rather large ISP, expects to fit > within a /21 with native IPv6 services, I do not see the need > to require every other ISP to use their IPv6 allocation as > efficiently as we do. Cost efficiency is more important, and > if a medium sized ISP needs a /21 in order to get their IPv6 > service rolled out faster, then I believe we should give them > that /21. > > The sooner we get the IPv6 transition into full gear, the better > it will be for all of us. Network effects demand that we help our > competitors by removing any barriers that limit them or slow > them down. > > --Michael Dillon You forget an important point: 6RD is developed for large amount of small customers (e.g. home users). Giving them /56-/60 should not be a problem. 6RD is not universal! Larger customers your should implement dual-stack solution and give them /48. One size does not fit for all! Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]