[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal

In reality RIPE will be giving up a finite resource for implementing one 
particular type of a transition protocol, i.e. 6rd.

Can't the response be go back to your vendor and ask them to implement a 
different transition protocol that doesn't waste address space ? After all, 
there are many such protocols out there.

-Ahmed


Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:20 +0200
From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Message-ID: <4EA67B94.2090305 at go6.si>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 10/25/11 9:44 AM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
> Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant
> change in allocation policy.
>
> As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6
> assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents
> v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented
> as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out
> IPv6 to end users.

Dear Ahmed,

We are aware of many similar technologies that would fulfill the same or
similar goal, but what we are doing here is just listen to complains and
requests from the field and try to make deployment of IPv6 (native or as
service in this case) as easy as possible with this change of the policy
proposal.

Reality usually wins :)

Cheers, Jan

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed at tamkien.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:44 AM
To: "RIPE Address Policy" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal

> Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant 
> change in allocation policy.
>
> As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 
> assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents 
> v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as 
> a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 
> to end users.
>
> -Ahmed
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200
> From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
> (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005 at go6.si>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> why are we screwing around?  let's go straight to a /16 or at least a
>> /20.
>
> it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :)
>
> can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S
>
> cheers, Jan
>