[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

Trade in your /32 and get something bigger under initial alloc conditions... :)

Jan

Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

>Hello Yannis,
>
>> Lately we've been trying to lay out a future-proof IPv6 addressing
>plan (actually, to revise our initial IPv6 plan from a few years back)
>and we came to the conclusion that if we were to plan ahead for a few
>years, we would need an extra IPv6 allocation from RIPE, one more /32
>(we already have one). Well, according to ripe-512 we're not eligible
>for a subsequent allocation yet, since we haven't met the subsequent
>allocation criteria (HD ratio).
>> 
>> We'll be offering our commercial dual stack services (broadband,
>leased-lines VPNs) next year. This means that we'll have 1,2M potential
>subscribers (/56) just for the retail service. And then there's all the
>/48s for the VPNs and bigger customers. I'm not saying that all of our
>customers will migrate to IPv6 at once but we have to plan, don't we?
>And then there's the growth factor to be considered also...
>> 
>> For us, this extra /32 will make the difference between an efficient
>and future-proof addressing plan that will last for many years and one
>that will have to be revised after 2-3 years (with all the readdressing
>etc). I thought that one of the key advantages with IPv6 was the fact
>that we would get rid of readdressing. What I'm trying to say is that
>ripe-512 is not flexible enough. In the end, should we planning ahead
>for many years (as per RFC6177) or not?
>
>I am adding the address policy working group. Any changes to address
>policy / ripe-512 should (also) be discussed there.
>
>Thank you,
>Sander Steffann
>APWG co-chair

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.