[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Jan Zorz @ Go6.si jan at go6.si
Mon Jul 18 15:35:40 CEST 2011
Trade in your /32 and get something bigger under initial alloc conditions... :) Jan Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: >Hello Yannis, > >> Lately we've been trying to lay out a future-proof IPv6 addressing >plan (actually, to revise our initial IPv6 plan from a few years back) >and we came to the conclusion that if we were to plan ahead for a few >years, we would need an extra IPv6 allocation from RIPE, one more /32 >(we already have one). Well, according to ripe-512 we're not eligible >for a subsequent allocation yet, since we haven't met the subsequent >allocation criteria (HD ratio). >> >> We'll be offering our commercial dual stack services (broadband, >leased-lines VPNs) next year. This means that we'll have 1,2M potential >subscribers (/56) just for the retail service. And then there's all the >/48s for the VPNs and bigger customers. I'm not saying that all of our >customers will migrate to IPv6 at once but we have to plan, don't we? >And then there's the growth factor to be considered also... >> >> For us, this extra /32 will make the difference between an efficient >and future-proof addressing plan that will last for many years and one >that will have to be revised after 2-3 years (with all the readdressing >etc). I thought that one of the key advantages with IPv6 was the fact >that we would get rid of readdressing. What I'm trying to say is that >ripe-512 is not flexible enough. In the end, should we planning ahead >for many years (as per RFC6177) or not? > >I am adding the address policy working group. Any changes to address >policy / ripe-512 should (also) be discussed there. > >Thank you, >Sander Steffann >APWG co-chair -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]