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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org] 
> Sent: It-Tnejn, 12 ta' Ġunju 2006 18:00
> To: Stephen Camilleri
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 
> 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and 
> Assignment Policy)
> 
> Stefan,
> 
> On Jun 11, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Stefan Camilleri wrote:
> > Hence my submissions in this forum. Us small fry rarely get 
> the chance 
> > to globe trot to the various voting events!
> 
> RIPE-NCC uses in-person voting to determine policies?

Thanks for that. It does not seem well advertised but that's my problem I guess. I'll keep an eye open on this. 

> >> When do you expect to provide v6 services to your customers?
> > Bottom line is I do not know.
> 
> Remember, the world ends on Dec 21, 2012 (according to the 
> Mayans and Geoff Huston).  Presumably, you'll want to begin 
> offering v6 service sometime before that...
> 

I got a different date on that even though RIPE policies permitting I'd still want to offer v6 within less than 4 years.

> > My customers have not yet requested it so how can I plan for any 
> > numbers.
> 
> It is called "marketing projections".

I see. So my hunch was right. Just throw in a bunch of numbers and keep on kidding ourselves

> > Plus not all my network components are yet up to a fully fledge 
> > rollout. For sure, however I'll have zero IPv6 networks 
> unless I have 
> > some sort of fantasy plan for 200 /48's.
> I guess I don't see the big deal in coming up with a plan.  
> If, by some chance, you don't meet the plan you specify, you 
> can simply return the v6 space you were allocated, no?  If 
> you have allocated address space to customers, I would 
> imagine RIPE-NCC could be convinced to give you a bit of 
> extra time.  (Perhaps that's a good place for policy revision?)
> 

Exactly the point. THAT would be an intelligent policy so why all the fuss about wanting to retain the current policy!

> > (and who came up with this /48 assinment chunk anyway???)
> 
> The same folks who brought you a maximum of 4096 entries in 
> the default-free zone.
> 
> > With some reasonable policies in
> > place there is room for everyone without fragmenting routing space
> 
> Fragmentation of the routing space occurs for two major reasons:  
> multiple allocations from RIRs and traffic engineering.  
> While the RIRs have some control over the first, it is the 
> ISPs that are in control of the second.  To date, there are 
> quite a few more specifics announced in IPv4.  Since IPv6 
> doesn't provide any additional mechanisms for TE, why 
> wouldn't more specifics be announced in IPv6?
> 
> > and with
> > practically little to no one needing to ever apply for a /32 
> > allocation within lifetimes.
> 
> You are aware, of course, that /19s and /20s of IPv6 address 
> space have already been allocated, right?  It'll be 
> interesting to see how many more specifics get announced out 
> of those allocations...

Yes. I was aware of that. Unfortunately IMHO, a bad start in the v6 allocation process.. But what's done is done.

> 
> > That is .... if the /48 and /64 assignment policies can ever be 
> > re-written.
> 
> That's a different policy proposal.
> 
> >> I'm honestly curious: have you applied to RIPE for IPv6 
> address space 
> >> and been rejected?
> > Glad you've got the point ;-) .. And yes, I did apply and yes I was 
> > rejected.
> 
> Fascinating.

Truly awesome ... I'm doing my best to smile :-|

> > Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask.
> 
> Despite promises to the contrary, the IPng working group.
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
>