<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <title>Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD</title> <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> All,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Maybe some info to put this discussion in context.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <![if !supportLists]>1) <![endif]>Current Ipv6 allocations<o:p></o:p> I made a distribution of Ipv6 allocations made by RIPE until now :<o:p></o:p> Most are /32, but you see a few allocations bigger than /32, up to /19.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> /19 2<o:p></o:p> /20 2<o:p></o:p> /21 2<o:p></o:p> /22 2<o:p></o:p> /23 1<o:p></o:p> /24 2<o:p></o:p> /25 1<o:p></o:p> /26 3<o:p></o:p> /27 2<o:p></o:p> /28 1<o:p></o:p> /31 3<o:p></o:p> /32 1580<o:p></o:p> /33 51<o:p></o:p> /34 51<o:p></o:p> /35 102<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This means that some LIR did a request with an address plan that justifies the bigger allocation.<o:p></o:p> I might expect that most of them are not based on 6rd deployments.<o:p></o:p> The biggest ones have been allocated in 2004, 2005, 2006. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Conclusion : Even without 6rd some LIR can justify the allocation of big IPv6 allocations.<o:p></o:p> I would expect that they have some vision on how they will use this big allocation in their network(s).<o:p></o:p> Because of this I’m not in favour of temporary allocations for migration using 6rd.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <![if !supportLists]>2) <![endif]>Current LIR<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Today we have less than 7000 LIR in the RIPE region. (source : draft RIPE NCC charging scheme)<o:p></o:p> Around 1650 LIR are Medium or bigger.<o:p></o:p> Around 330 of these are Large or bigger. <o:p></o:p> Less than 70 are Extra Large.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> These Large or Extra Large LIR have several 100.000 or millions of customers and multiple allocations<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Based on this info I see no issue that the IPRA (IP Resource Analyst) can allocate a bigger allocation than /32 based on a realistic address plan and good justification. Justification can be 6rd in a first phase and something else in a later phase.<o:p></o:p> No need for special policy, just follow the existing Ipv6 address policy.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Do you think that more than 1000 LIR will apply for an allocation bigger than /32 in the coming 3 years ?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Marc Neuckens<o:p></o:p> Belgacom<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html> <table><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff><pre>**** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer</pre></td></tr></table>