[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 03:27:11PM +0200, Jerzy Pawlus wrote:
> > So I think this discussion should move towards:
> > 
> >  - find examples of networks that have problems with the current policy,
> >    and try to figure out common criteria
> 
>   Gert, I don't think that at the moment we can find more examples other than
>   you mentioned in your letter, ie.  Telcos and NREN networks.
>   To some extent it understandable. Big ISP need more time to prepare
>   themselves, especially in the access area. NREN networks tend to see
>   problems rather sooner than later. Others will follow as Dami said
>   "when they face the problem".
>   On the other hand the interest in and discussion on this matter is
>   surpisingly small.

Actually, "Big Telcos" and "NRENs" seem to be able to work with the
current IPv6 policy fairly well.  "Big Telcos" seem to be able to get
up to a /20, and I see a number of NRENs with IPv6...


> >  - formulate criteria for "additional allocations" that can get 
> >    (rough) consensus
> 
>   As you clearly stated in one of your letters it almost impossible
>   to apply HD-Ratio to a big ISP. To succesfully run such a business you must
>   assume some hierarchy in addressing scheme. Any hierarchy leads to address
>   waste anf if you stick to this you will never reach HD-Ratio. 
>   This is a 'real life'

Please read up on how HD ratio works.  The whole point about HD ratio is
to handle the additional waste caused exactly due to *hierarchy* in
addressing.

IPv4 has a fixed 80% usage ratio.  IPv6 is much more flexible here.


>   If not to big ISP where else we can apply HD-ratio? Other LIRs will never
>   reach it. The conclusion is rather surpising. We can silently drop
>   HD-Ratio criteria and nothing wrong will happen.
>   In IPv6 world HD-Ratio seems not to work as well as in IPv4

I don't understand what you are trying to tell us.  There is no HD-ratio
in IPv4.  There is HD-ratio in IPv6 (and whether it works or not remains
to be seen, as I don't know any ISP that has filled up his IPv6 
allocation and has come back to the RIPE NCC for more space).

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090417/16eb8c9a/attachment.sig>