[address-policy-wg] 2009-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment)

* Filiz Yilmaz <filiz at ripe.net> [2009-04-07 12:48]:
> PDP Number: 2009-04
> IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for
> discussion.
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 5 May 2009.

Hi,

if I understand this proposal correctly, you want to give a /27 to an
LIR or end user so that they can do NAT-PT or something like that?

First: It won't work. Most people I know filter prefixes smaller than
/24 in the DFZ. They will not see these allocations. You can't assume
that they will change their filters for this. I would estimate that
most of them won't. Many can't do this because it will not fit in
their RIB/FIB. So if you do this you would have to give out a /24 at
least.

Second: We do want to facilitate deployment of IPv6. I think this
proposal could be counterproductive. You're splitting up the remaining
space in smaller peaces so that more people can use IPv4 for a longer
timespan. And if you have to give out /24s you can bet that people
will use it for other things besides NAT-PT etc.

Third: Is it necessary? You already have to demonstrate a need for
address space if you want a new allocation. If an LIR already has an
allocation I assume that they can spare an /27 for IPv6 transition.
If you have a new LIR you allocate them a /21 if they can demonstrate
the need for it, no change there.

Kind Regards,

Sebastian
-- 
GPG Key-ID: 0x76B79F20 (0x1B6034F476B79F20)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant