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

> > No hard feelings, but I felt this needed to be said.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with 6RD in principle, it's when 
> people map the entire IPv4 space into IPv6 blindly and then 
> use a small fraction of it that it becomes wasteful.

This is not wasteful. It is an elegant extension to the IPv6
architecture. Using a standard /64 prefix for all network
segments containing more than a single device, is also an
elegant solution and is part of the IPv6 standard. The same
is true of the standard /48 assignment per site which provides
every site with 8 bits of space to subnet their site into
/64 networks, regardless of whether they "need" 1 subnet or
100 subnets.

Numbers cost nothing. By "wasting" lots of numbers, we can 
achieve a simpler design that saves real money, and real effort
for millions of people building and managing IPv6 networks.

IPv4 had a very limited address space and we had to be very
careful about wasting numbers until there was a new protocol
ready to replace it. That time has come, so there is no need
to talk about wasting numbers any more.

In reality, the issue wasn't how many numbers were wasted, but
what percentage of the total number space was wasted. In IPv6,
by design, we are putting entire ISPs into the same percentage
of the total number space, /32, as a single host in IPv4.

> I don't have a problem with ISPs will millions of subscribers 
> getting a /24, I have a problem when "every" mom and pop ISP 
> with an AS number is getting a /24 because they want to run 6RD.

In IPv4, we gave out /24 blocks to actual real mom and pop ISPs
not just metaphorical ones. I see no reason to treat IPv6 as
a more scarce resource to IPv4, and therefore, if a mom and pop
ISP really does need a /24 to transition using 6RD, then I would
say we should give it to them. However, I suspect that small ISPs
like that would not actually require a /24 to effectively do 6RD.

> As long as the policy incurs that you need to have a certain 
> amount of customers to warrant running 6RD using all of IPv4 
> space and thus needing
> /24 or /28, otherwise you'd better map a smaller part of it 
> and then you'll be able to fit it just fine into your /32 most likely.

You have probably written more detail on what a 6RD policy would look
like than anyone so far. For the sake of clarity, perhaps you could
submit a policy proposal and then we will all have something
specific to discuss.

I would support a special policy for 6RD even if it does nothing
more than clarify how RIPE currently treats IPv6 requests for
use with 6RD.

--Michael Dillon