This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Thu Jun 17 14:21:39 CEST 2004
> And this is part of the problem. > We won't be rolling IPv6 out ot 200 customers any time soon. > So we can't get an allocation. Thus we can't run trials with IPv6. > I really fail to see the reason behind the 200 other organisation rule - > perhaps somee one would like to explain the logic. There is no logic to the rule. You have come right to the crux of the problem. The rules make it unnecessarily difficult to get IPv6 addresses which makes it hard for LIRs to get the addresses needed to run trials. If an LIR has already justified an IPv4 address block from RIPE then they should qualify for a block of IPv6 addresses. It doesn't matter how many IPv4 addresses they have or what plans they have for IPv6. Only one thing matters: the organization has proven that they have a real IP network and can justify receiving a RIPE IPv4 allocation. This means that they are a real IP network operator. And since all IP network operators will tranisition to IPv6 at some time in the future, they should need no other justification for an IPv6 allocation. The same rule should apply in all the other 4 RIR regions. The pseudo-logic behind this rule is that IPv4 addresses are scarce therefore we have to be careful how many we allocate and who we give them to. Since IPv6 is like IPv4 we also need complex rules to limit who gets addresses. The flaw is that IPv6 is not *LIKE* IPv4. It is a simpler and more flexible version of the Internet Protocol that has a vastly larger address space. The block of IPv6 unicast addresses currently earmarked for the RIRs is only a small part of the total address space. If we waste all of this by making dumb decisions then we still have plenty of other address space to use later on when we are wiser and have more IPv6 experience. This means that the risk of doing the wrong thing is vastly smaller than it was with IPv4. We should plan to err on the side of simplicity and flexibilty, i.e. give everyone an IPv6 allocation if they already have an IP network. There is very little downside to doing this. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]