[address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

Hi Peter,

/48 is already in a nibble boundary, so no chance :-)

Despite that, initially I'm considering only the policy for IPv6 PA (LIRs/ISPs).

If the inputs provide a view that this should be the same for IPv6 PI, I've no issue in do that one as well, so in that case if you have previously justified, for example, a /47, you should automatically be able to get the /44.

However, if we believe that both should be proposed (nibble boundary for IPv6 PA and nibble boundary for IPv6 PI) I think it will be better decoupled in separate policy proposals, to facilitate the discussion and possible consensus, and again no problem from my side to work on both.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org>
Fecha: miércoles, 2 de mayo de 2018, 7:45
Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

    On 2018 May 02 (Wed) at 07:25:12 -0500 (-0500), JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
    :Hi all,
    :
    :As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary.
    :
    :In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar.
    :
    :I'm considering submitting a policy proposal in each RIR (RIPE, AfriNIC, LACNIC, APNIC), for that, but I will like to get some inputs before, and "sense" the feeling about that of the participants.
    :
    :Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28.
    :
    
    Using this justification, would that also grow all IPv6 PI /48s to a /44,
    or only those that are not already at a nibble boundary?
    
    
    :This is the example that Owen sent to the AfriNIC list:
    :
    :1.	Figure out the number of end sites you expect to serve in your largest aggregation point
    :	in 3-5 years.
    :2.	Round that to a nibble boundary (with a 25% minimum free space) (1-12 end sites = 4 bits,
    :	13-192 end sites = 8 bits. 193-3,072 end sites = 12 bits, 3,073-49,152 end sites = 16 bits,
    :	49,153-786,432 = 20 bits, etc.)… Call this E.
    :3.	Figure out the number of aggregation points you expect to have in 3-5 years. Round that up
    :	to a nibble boundary with a 25% minimum free space (same as in step 2). Call this A.
    :4.	48-(A+E) = prefix size.
    :
    :	Example: An ISP has 42,000 customers in it’s largest end site. It has 128 end sites.
    :		E = 16, A = 8, 48-(16+8) = 48-(24) = 24, this ISP should get a /24.
    :
    :So, would you agree in doing something on this line?
    :
    :Thanks in advance for any inputs!
    :
    :Regards,
    :Jordi
    : 
    : 
    :
    :
    :
    :**********************************************
    :IPv4 is over
    :Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    :http://www.consulintel.es
    :The IPv6 Company
    
    
    -- 
    Broad-mindedness, n.:
    	The result of flattening high-mindedness out.
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.