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

Hi,

Sorry, I am not following, what do you mean with "the" connectivity model?

@second: you are talking about the "001" FP space, I see plenty of reserved
space if needed, also again the scope of the discussion is limited to ISPs
who need the address space to do 6RD or similar transition methods, no one
is asking to change the minimum allocation size to /24. I don´t assume that
millions of ISPs will do 6RD.

Cheers,
Florian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von David Conrad
Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2009 18:07
An: Florian Frotzler
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Florian Frotzler wrote:
> so...we don't need to fear giving out /24 to LIRs, because LIRs are
> not coffee machines, refrigerators or other things which will get v6
> in the future, so we will not run out of address space by handing out
> /24. I just wanted to contradict the metaphor Jim described.

First, you are making the assumption that the connectivity model used with
IPv4 will remain unchanged with IPv6.  I am not so confident this will
always be the case.

Second, there are a bit under 2.1 million /24s in the global unicast IPv6
space. How long would you expect 2.1 /24s to last?

Regards,
-drc