[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Hi Sander,

It is clearly stated in the draft that you can only aggregate IPv4
address space if there is a common prefix, like "10" in 10.0.0.0/8. If
you use public address space this is not possible and you are forced
to use all 32 bits. If you have an SP prefix of 32 bits and 32 bits
for the IPv4 address you end up having none for subnetting. So yes,
Swisscom needs more than a /32.

But...

Free.fr got a /26, as they state in their RIPE-58 presentation, so
they obviously could argument their need for the address space in
front of RIPE. This leaves two flows to follow...

-> either it depends on who from the hostmasters is dealing with your
allocation request, because why would RIPE deal with Swisscom
different than with free.fr?
-> or Swisscom could not argue the need to RIPE in the same way as free.fr?

Maybe someone from RIPE can clarify this.

Cheers,
Florian

2009/11/25 Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>:
> Hi Jan,
>
>> We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how
>> 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also
>> because we want to give the customer a small subnet).
>
> In draft-townsley-ipv6-6rd-01 the following example is given:
>
> This example show how the 6rd prefix is created based on a /32 IPv6 prefix
> with a private IPv4 address were the first octet is "compressed" out:
>  SP prefix: 2001:0DB8::/32
>  6rd IPv4 prefix: 10.0.0.0/8
>  6rd router IPv4 address: 10.100.100.1
>  6rd site IPv6 prefix: 2001:0DB8:6464:0100::/56
>
> With this scheme you can still give every customer out of an IPv4 /8 an
> IPv6 /56 subnet. If you have an IPv4 /16 with customers you could
> "compress" so that every customer has an IPv6 /48. And if you have more
> than 65k customers you should have no problem with getting a bigger IPv6
> allocation.
>
> Because the IPRA refuses to give you more addresses based on your customer
> base I suspect that you have less than 65k customers. With a smart IPv4
> <--> IPv6-RD mapping that should not be a problem for IPv6-RD.
>
> Can you give some extra background information that explains why you need
> more than a /32?
>
> - Sander
>
>
>