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

Ahmed,

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

finite => there are 67 million /29s. and there is what < 15000 ISPs in the world?
given that we only use 1/8 of the IPv6 address space for this model of addressing. do we get it wrong, we have 7 more tries.
the biggest hurdle we have now is to get IPv6 deployed; if we don't succeed in that it doesn't much matter that we have conserved address space that no-one uses... ;-)

cheers,
Ole

> 
> 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
>