[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Hi,

On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:01, Dan Luedtke <maildanrl at googlemail.com> wrote:

>> A 6RD allocation should be 100% 6RD and no other use of it should be allowed, so that it can easily be returned once the 6RD deployment is no longer in use.
> I agree regarding allocations that were requested for use with 6RD.
> However, LIR/ISP requesting space from "their own" /29 should not
> require documentation when used for 6RD. For some reason, ISPs tend to
> deploy 6RD inside "their own" /29 rather than requesting a new /2x.

Requests for more space than /32 SHOULD require documentation, so your pretext I do not agree with. Moreover, it is easy and completely rational to, on your "subnet" lines, indicate if there is a 6RD subnet present in your plan/motivation. Additionally, it is very easy to subnet in such a way that 6RD is placed in the higher bits of the /29 or so, such that the space can be returned when no longer use. Admittedly, this gets more tricky with an initial allocation.

>> That, or, roll native. ;)
> I like the rolling native part :)
> When it comes to mobile network, we might be stuck to transition
> technologies forever(tm). There will be parts of the network that will
> never be LTE only, like strange sensors in some (hopefully not mission
> critical) infrastructure and things like that. So chances are, when
> looking at mobile networks, that a 6RD deployment will never be
> returned. :(

See other email. 

> 

Best,
Martin