[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Michael,

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> /64 was for stateless autoconfig (EUI-64).
>> /48 was to make it easier for folks to move between ISPs.  Since all 
>> allocations to end sites would be the same size, all that would need 
>> to change would be the upper 48 bits.
> 
> In particular, this means that moving between
> ISPs does not require you to change your internal
> network topology. Since topology changes can
> involve a lot of equipment purchase and rewiring,
> this levels the competitive field for IPv6 access
> services. You can design your network with the 
> future in mind and then grow into your topology.
> That is not possible in today's IPv4 world where
> everybody is concerned with not wasting addresses.

I think it's worth clarifying that RIPE's IPv4 policy specifically 
states that one-to-one renumbering for valid assignments are fine. The 
relevant text can be found at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#assign_renumbering

Individual ISPs may choose to be assign addresses in a more conservative 
way than is strictly required.

Regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC