[ipv6-wg] IPv6 questions regarding ripe and address ranges

Hello,

>As of today, RIPE membership will give you a single /32, tagged "PA"
>(to be used for ISP-alike networks and their customers).

I guess we can skip the ripe membership. I don't think we will need a
single /32 that can only be advertised on one place.

>No, of course not. That some people think that "There is enough IPv6"
>does not mean that you are going to trash away /32's. You should
calculate for a /48 per site, that is already way too much in most
cases.

Glad to see my thinking was right in the end, it just took me a while to
ask the right question.

>Are you ready to provide vendors C and J and others with big wads of
cash? :) Thus please think about about the future. This is a nice hot
research topic btw ;)
>Depending on the size of your individual locations, you might want to
consider using a mixed strategy, though - use static space (PI) in the
big (and/or multihomed) locations, and provider >space (PA) for the
smaller offices.  Yes, renumbering is work - but injecting extra routes
in the global system causes global cost, so the tradeoff should be
seriously considered.

Yeah, I don't wanna be responsible for breaking the internet (which
would probably lead to riots at my doorstep including torches and
pitchforks) :)

But I think everyone realises that business goals come before the common
good, even though we would like to see different. If PI space provides
less risk it is easy to choose that way.

>There is a catch there indeed, that when you have your hugely popular
webserver in the /48 from your site in Berlin and you have a nice 10GE
connection there, but you have a site in Amsterdam >with only a measly
2mbit DSL link with their own /48, that theoretically you should be
announcing that whole /32 in Amsterdam too if you want to connect up
there, which would suck the 10GE >traffic in Amsterdam over a 2mbit DSL
link and then you would have to transport it to Berlin some way. The
other solution would be to only announce the /32 in Berlin and then to
transport the >2mbit of DSL back to Amsterdam which is the better one.

I don't think we can lower the POP because of locations being in the
same continent. It's obviously that everyone usually has their own isp
and connectivity based upon needs. If it were only easy (fast/reliable)
enough to transfer all our traffic to 1 endpoint on a continent before
"going out" on the internet.

My idea (based upon the input here) is that I should look at larger
sites that need to be provider independent (and get them PI space) and
at the smaller sites. 

--Ralph Peeters

This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law.

If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message.

Thank you for your co-operation.