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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Nov 5 12:16:29 CET 2011
Hi, On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 03:37:09AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > Raising the HD-ratio so much (from 0.8 to 0.94) was a clear mistake > in my opinion. Even if you have every(!) german citizen as customer, > you would never qualify for more than a /28. That's ridiculous. Indeed it is, as your statement is missing one important bit to be useful - the size of the prefix you intend to give your customers. If you give out /64s, you have 4 billion of those in a /32, so you don't need more to number roughly 80 million customers. If you give out /56s, indeed, ripe-523/appendix A shows that you qualify for a /28 - which contains 268 million /56s, so whether this is sufficient or not depends on the internal network structure, and it might be a bit tight if you have multiple levels of aggregation, yes. If you hand out /48s to your customers, (roughly) 80 million customers would be counted as 256*80 million = 20 billion /56s - and appendix A permits allocation of a /19 in that case. > The 128 bit IPv6 addr width had the promise to provide enough bits for > internal hierarchy for "nice" (read: cheap to manage, easy to deal with in > general and specifically operations) addressing plans. For large/mid-scale > residential ISPs of certain topologies and access infrastructures, the > current "ruleset" of "consider only 2-3yrs plans for initial alloc" > in combination with HD-ratio 0.94 requirement for getting more bits, is > a real problem. We're back to slice-and-dice-on-demand - no proper > hierarchical structure anymore. Otherwise, HD-ratio 0.94 WILL bite > sooner or later. I think I mentioned this a few times before: if you think the HD ratio is using the wrong number, or if you think the HD formula is completely wrong to start with, please submit a policy proposal to change this to whatever you think would work better. But this is somewhat out of scope for the discussion of 2011-04 and should not be discussed in *this* thread. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]