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

Dear Ahmed,

I would have completely agreed with you five years ago. Problem is, we've
managed to run out of time and 6rd is one of the few transition protocols
that has a chance of being implemented in many eyeball networks in the
next 12-18 months. I don't like 6RD much either (actually I also don't
like how IPv6 reserves 64 bits for the host part), but this is address
policy and not the protocol police.

Address space that is used is not wasted, and if LIRs use it below the
thresholds set in IPv6 allocation policy (which, surprise surprise, 6rd is
likely to do) at least those LIRs won't be entitled to any followup
address space until they've cleaned up.

Best regards,

Remco van Mook
Director of Interconnection, Europe
 
remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
+31 61 135 6365 MOB
 
EQUINIX
51-53 Great Marlborough Street
London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom







On 28-10-11 11:01, "Ahmed Abu-Abed" <ahmed at tamkien.com> wrote:

>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
>> 
>



This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited.  Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW.  Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.