[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On Monday 04 April 2005 17:43, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes.  This is how it works with IPv4 PA blocks right now (in RIPE land)
> - and *these* blocks are *not* what's filling the routing tables with
> 150k routes, given that we have only a few thousand RIPE members.
>
> >
> > I thought one of the goals with IPv6 address policy was _NOT_ to
> > repeat the mistakes of the past.
>
> The only way to avoid *all* mistakes is to avoid giving anybody address
> space at all.  There is no way to come up with a policy that decides
> today who is "worthy" that will not be challenged by someone else in
> 10 years.  Or next week.
>
> Personally, I'd go for a handful of mistakes (and I'm willing to put
> enough RAM in my routers to handle 10.000 entries in the IPv6 BGP tables)
> if that means "we'll start making progress" - because if IPv6 isn't going
> to take up soon, it's dead.
>

There are bound to be mistakes, like you say. However, one of the major 
mistakes with v4 (imho) was the initial handing out of large amounts of 
address space to people who had no use for that many addresses. We're not 
faced with the quite same problems of address space exhaustion with v6, but I 
see absolutely no reason to repeat the same errors over and over by just 
wasting the address resources.
I'd rather see large routing tables rather than in 10 years time find we're 
running out of v6 space.
Most of this seems to stem from the simple requirement to multihome (anycast 
or otherwise). Perhaps we should just wait for the final recommendations from 
multi6 and see what they've come up with.

Jon