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

marc.neuckens at belgacom.be wrote:
> I read in the paragraph 4 (IPv6 Policy Principles) of the  IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy :
>
> ---------------
> 4.4. Consideration of IPv4 infrastructure
> Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for eventual transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of present IPv4 customers may be used to justify a larger request than would be justified if based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure.
> -------------
>
> I suppose this justifies the request, no ?
>   
It does seem to allow for quite a bit of leeway. I wonder though if 
smaller ISPs (without many IPv4 users to base upon) might get stuck out 
in the cold though. One argument given on this thread was that smaller 
ISPs might be more able to natively deploy, but on the other hand it's 
smaller ISPs that may not have the (legal or otherwise) ability to 
upgrade the non-IPv6 capable access network that 6rd is so good at 
getting around. Small ISPs also happen to be the kind that typically can 
deploy bleeding edge new services like IPv6. So, before saying we're 
done on this alone, I'd like to at least know that we are not holding up 
small ISPs willing to deploy IPv6 to all their customers in, say, 2010 
iff they can use 6rd.
> I don't see any problem in allocating an ipv6 allocation bigger than /32 for ISP with millions of existing customers.
> Who knows how many subnets we will assign in 10, 20 years.
>
> A /32 is only 2^16 or 16 million /56 subnets or 65536 /48.
>   
So strictly speaking, for a /28 prefix (6rd /60 to the customer with no 
IPv4 compression), basing upon eventual service of /48 to all sites when 
the transition is gone, an ISP needs 2^20 IPv4 customers today. That 
seems to be the bar: If you are an ISP with one million subscribers, you 
have the option of a /28 to deploy 6rd under current policy (two or four 
million to sit comfortably with a /27 or /26 like Free). I'd like to 
know if there are smaller ISPs wanting to deploy with 6rd, and whether 
compression is an option, etc. I'm pretty sure there are at least one or 
two, but a I doubt all that many. If I'm right, opening the door a 
little more widely to just these few I cannot imagine is all that 
dangerous, and perhaps could even happen under current policy.
> I prefer this than allocate now a /32, in 2 years extend to a /30 and then to a /27 and then an other /27.
> (even if the other /32 in the /27 are not allocated to other LIR)
>
> It all depends on how future-proof the address plan is.
>
> What is used now for 6rd and transition can be reused in the LIR for extra customers / applications in 5 years.
>   
Absolutely. And, if you give a little extra space to someone who 
*actually* deploys IPv6 now vs. later, I'd say that's a prize worth 
giving :-)

- Mark
> Marc Neuckens
> Belgacom
>
>
> **** DISCLAIMER ****
> http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer
>
>
>