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

On the contrary. If 6RD is accepted as an argument for an allocation, and 6RD without any v4 prefix compression because of convenience, then every single applicant from then on will say they've got plans to deploy 6RD and can we please have the /24. They don't even need to lie, just be let's say 'optimistic'. 

It's not going to be temporary and it's not going to be 'a few' - also I shudder to think what the 1500-ish LIRs who already have a /32 allocation will do based on this. Probably get the extra /24 and not return the /32 because there's already some stuff in there that can't be migrated because it's too expensive and will hurt IPv6 deployment. The same arguments supporting 6RD right now.

The good news is, this will double the IPv6 routing table in size. The bad news is, this will double the IPv6 routing table in size.

Remco

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Florian Frotzler
Sent: dinsdag 1 december 2009 19:37
To: 'David Conrad'
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: 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



This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.