This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Status Update - Independent Resource Assignments (Policy Proposal 2007-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at csbnet.se
Thu Mar 11 15:42:08 CET 2010
Hello list, On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 14:28 +0100, Alex Le Heux wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > During the discussion on the APWG list about 6rd, several people have > inquired about the exact way Registration Services evaluates requests > for 6rd deployment. This email will try to answer these inquiries. > > The RIPE NCC considers current policy to be completely agnostic to > 6rd, it neither specifically supports nor disallows 6rd deployment. > This means that Registration Services will evaluate IPv6 allocation > requests that include 6rd deployments according to the established > policies and procedures of justified need. <snip> > Another LIR, who has 3 million customers, intends to deploy 6rd with / > 60 assignments. Currently, the IPRA would consider 3 million /60 > assignments to fit into a /38, thus the default /32, while the 6rd > deployment would require a /28. > > Note that neither of these LIRs would qualify easily for an additional > allocation under the HD-ratio rules. I am curious how LIRs that employ 6RD today plan to motivate their need for the 15 extra /32:s they would be allocated following the example above, with the /28-instead-of-/32, once the 6RD transition phase is complete. IIRC RIPE are currently spacing their /32 assignments on a /29 basis. Eg, anticimex at hsa:~$ for i in `seq 0 8`; do whois 2a02:9a$i::/32 | egrep '(inet6num|netname)' ; done inet6num: 2a02:9a0::/32 netname: SE-SCS-20090203 inet6num: 2a00::/12 netname: EU-ZZ-2A00 [...] inet6num: 2a02:9a8::/32 netname: IT-SPIN-20090204 I guess that it would be trivial to fall back to the first /32, or whatever less-than-6RD-inflated prefix you had before, once the transition is over, as long as the LIR plans ahead accordingly. Best regards, -- Martin Millnert <millnert at csbnet.se> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100311/6e5a09df/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Status Update - Independent Resource Assignments (Policy Proposal 2007-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]