[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Jul 19 10:04:28 CEST 2011
Hi WG, Op 19 jul 2011, om 00:04 heeft Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg het volgende geschreven: > Daniel wrote: >> [no, I'm not advocating senseless waste - but what's "wasting" and >> "making use of a technology to realize improvements in operational cost" >> is probably very much in the eye of the beholder] > > I must agree here. If you do the math, you come up with "we do have > enough addresses, even if we give any human on earth hundreds of /48" > (and I hope nobody really wants to do). But as we are at the luxury > point where saving address space isn't really that big issue, why > shoud we make network design more difficult by introducing artificial > obstacles that possible saves some addresse? From my point of view > IPv6 address policy should focus on: > a) making IPv6 easy deployable > b) keeping the dfz table as small as possible without restrains to > IPv6 deployment > c) allowing clean network design even if that comes with the cost > of a reasonable amount of additional address space usage > > Obviously, we also should keep in mind that the IPv6 space is huge > but finite so we should make sure that we will not run low on > address space at some point. > > To sum things up, I think the HD-Ratio of .94 is not what we want as > it makes future deployment more difficult without any real reason. I think Immo has given a good summary of what I heard on this list and from some people at the last RIPE meeting. Scott also brought this to our attention: > FYI, a number of folks had this same issue in the ARIN region, and as a result policy ARIN-2010-12 (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_12.html) was proposed, adopted, and implemented to address the problem. Considering the amount of messages here related to this subject I think we should start working towards a formal policy proposal. Jan Žorž has already started working on a related proposal (see his message a few minutes ago on this list) so I think it might be a good idea to start from there. Thanks, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]