[address-policy-wg] Comments on 2006-01 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

> >The current swamp is a block in which the allocations
> >are not structured according to network topology. All
> >IPv6 blocks are structured, at the highest level, according
> >to continental-scale areas. At a more detailed level,
> >PI blocks smaller than a /32, could be allocated
> >according to some kind of topological addressing plan.
> >For instance, RIPE could have a Scandinavia aggregate,
> >CIS aggregate, Central aggregate (FR, DE, BE, CH, NL, PL, AT),
> >Western aggregate (UK, IE, ES, PT) and Southeast aggregate
> >(Ex-Yugoslavia, GR, TR, IL).
> 
> We have one router in almost every country you listed and some you 
> haven't, all within Europe. Do we get 5 /32 then?

If you are an LIR then you get one /32.
If a future PI IPv6 policy hands out allocations
I suspect they will be considerably smaller than
a /32. Maybe /48 or maybe a few of them. You will
you have to justify the size of the PI allocation
and if RIPE did manage the PI addressing out of
several regional aggregates, then you could ask them
for 5 different regional /48s. 

> In addition, one of the networks we manage which also covers a large
> area is planned to be handed off to its own managing entity, 
> complete with the infrastructure. So we'd like PI v6 space please to
> address it. 

Normally, if you are an LIR, you would build this
network and assign a /48 per end-site. Then, when 
the other entity takes control, they could decide
to leave it that way or to change ISPs and readdress
or to apply to RIPE for a PI allocation.

> And for it and our primary network we plan 
> to allocate 0 addresses to 0 customers for the next 2, 10, 20, infinity 
years.

Yes, when I worked for Ebone we did the same thing
until we started selling some end-user Internet access
in 2000. A company which sells managed VPN services
to clients in which they own the routers and firewalls
on the client sites and use NAT exclusively one the
CPE routers, is in the same position. Technically,
they only assign addresses to themselves for the 
CPE devices which they own and the NAT pools in those
devices. In the IPv6 world, I expect NAT to continue
to be used in such scenarios only it will be pure
NAT without any port-mapping magic.

I agree that the policy around 200 assignments is
flawed and should be changed. But if people need
addresses today, they need to work with that
flawed policy and make a plan to fit it.

--Michael Dillon