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

On 10/26/11 7:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.

Agree.

>
> I also feel that 6RD justifies a /32, it doesn't justify a /30 or alike.

No. 6RD in it's natural form "needs" /24 in order to give /56 to users.

/30 is a compromise to give /62 (4 subnets) to end user.

> 6RD is a transitioning tech that I would like to see gone in 5 years,

We all wish that but usually temporary solutions are most permanent 
ones. Old DSLAMs are there to stay and probably we'll see this stuff in 
the networks for next 10 or 15 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.

We would really like to prevent abusive/proxy/crap technologies to 
emerge just to be able to split that /64 in more subnets. Please, do us 
a favor and re-think :)

>
> 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.

This introduces an incentive to lie to IPRAs. We know that in IPv4, the 
trend is to lie to get more space. We are well aware of that so our 
proposal tends not to introduce an incentive to start lie to IPRAs. One 
incentive already emerged there, if you have hosting datacenter and no 
need to be LIR, don't say you'll give IPv6 addresses to your customers 
(servers) if you want to get IPv6 PI space. I hope this one will also be 
removed.

Cheers, Jan