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

Am 26.10.2011 13:55, schrieb Martin Millnert:

> Knowing you represent Go6, I do wonder what operators are requesting
> this.  It wouldn't hurt if they came here and voiced their opinions
> directly either. The APWG-ml community is not a 1:1 map to RIPE region
> operators, so the community response you will get here may or may not be
> what you want.

We'll not go for 6RD. But if we would it would be easier with a simple
mapping mechanism. Not only from the technical point of view. Complexity
is sometimes not easy to sell to everyone inside the company. Especially
if you have several v4 /15, /16, /.... and dynamic dial-in-pools for
residential customers distributed over all of them and also inside every
prefix. For example an easy to understand mechanism may help to answer
support calls. Another example. From time to time the firwall / server
people are asking for a list of all our dial-in-pools in order to configure
access lists for services or spam fighting or .... It's additional work
(for people, firewalls, loadbalancers, servers...) to take care about a
list of prefixes instead one prefix. If we would like to introduce 6RD
it would be much easier with a /29 and a subnetting plan. Just keep it
simple.

But we want to do native v6 and we need additional bits to make the
v6 pools on our access routers big enough for all our residential customers
from the beginning. Fortunately the policy text itself is not mentioning 6RD
and so it solves our problem too.

Michael

-- 
Michael Adams                                  Tel: +49 221 2222 657
Network Engineering & Design                   Fax: +49 221 2222 7657

NetCologne                                     Geschäftsführer
Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH         Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher)
Am Coloneum 9                                  Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel
50829 Köln                                     HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln