[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Jim,

I can tell you that being forced to implement multiple SP prefixes
might be a show-stopper for a numerous of ISPs to implement 6RD,
including Swisscom, this is fact. It is a huge operational burden,
especially for the IT stack, and means $$$ needed to be spend. So do
we want to hamper the v6 rollout because we like to conserve some bits
in an almost endless address space?

Cheers,
Florian


2009/12/1 Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>:
> On 1 Dec 2009, at 11:29, Remco van Mook wrote:
>
>> If we decide to hand out /24s to 6RD and we think that’s not a waste of
>> address space (even though nobody has been able to give me an satisfactory
>> answer I’m willing to throw in the towel) make that a permanent
>> allocation,
>> not a temporary one. The pretense that people will actually hand back that
>> prefix is, let’s say, not consistent with current experiences in IPv4.
>> Once
>> it’s out of the bag it’s out of the bag, never to return.
>
> Remco, all, I think these two issues should be separated.
>
> You're quite right to underline the absurdity of a policy discussion which
> is centred around "temporary" allocations. Once the space is given out, it's
> gone and will never be returned. So I agree wholeheartedly that the policy
> language should only concern itself with permanent allocations. If there's
> some other policy that requires temporary allocations for something, then
> there should be a clear time component to that, like the RIR reclaims the
> space from the LIR N months after its allocation. Not that that would apply
> to these 6RD allocations...
>
> As for the mechanics of /24s for 6RD, I'm still confused and uncertain. It's
> not clear why so much space is needed and if such allocations are wasteful
> or not. They don't look like an efficient use of address space. Then again,
> almost no IPv6 allocations can be space-efficient... [For some definition of
> that term.] My main concerns are how many LIRs will need/want these /24s,
> the precedents this sets and the impact they have on the overall supply of
> v6 address space.
>
> I fear we could be treating the abundance of IPv6 space the same way as a
> lottery winner might spend their money in a bar or casino: a *lot* of fun
> while it lasts.
>