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

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Martin Millnert wrote:

> Seriously though, I cannot support a policy proposal for 6RD or other 
> transition technologies that burns this much v4 space ( ie , full 
> mapping of ipv4), that does not explicitly attach requirements on the 
> space to A) not be used for anything but the transition technology, and 
> B) clearly be marked by the NCC as being of transition tech $FOO, and 
> finally C) very explicitly be only valid as long as the use stays.

I agree with the above. I do not like to blanket increase to /29 and keep 
it there for everybody, but I do want people using 6RD who need to map the 
entire IPv4 space (which isn't strictly needed, if you're a small network 
you can map just part of the IPv4 space into IPv6 space, for instance on 
/16 border instead of at /0.

I also feel that 6RD justifies a /32, it doesn't justify a /30 or alike. 
6RD is a transitioning tech that I would like to see gone in 5 years, and 
until then I believe a single /64 in the home should be enough for these 
transitioning tech users. When they get native IPv6, they can get their 
/56. If an ISP wants to give more space to their end users using 6RD, 
they'll have to do more granular 6RD mapping.

So I guess my counter-proposal is to give everybody a /32, and if they say 
6RD then they may get a /31 instead, with the additional /32 usage being 
reviewed every 5 years or so.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se