[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

> > There are only 2 reasons that I can see to write a special policy.
> > One is to encourage ISPs to assign /56 prefixes to customers, not 
> > longer ones like /60.
> Or /60s vs. /64s. I think you may be a little optimistic if 
> you think that /60 is the low end of the totem pole here.

I don't believe that RIR policy should ever encourage ISPs
to assign customer sites a prefix longer than /56. In fact,
we really should discourage assigning anything other than
a /48 or a /56 because part of the benefit of IPv6 comes
from giving the customers a spacious number space in which
they can subnet. This also allows for greater portability,
i.e. I can switch providers without changing my network
architecture, or I can relocate to another country and know
that I will get the same prefix length assignment.

> Case in point is that when Free first offered its IPv6 
> service, it did so within the /32 it had by giving /64s to 
> all its customers. A few folks like myself complained, and 
> they changed it only because they were able to get a large 
> enough allocation from RIPE (which they had to go back and 
> ask for). If that had not happened, it's not like Free would 
> have ripped out its entire DSLAM infrastructure and upgraded 
> it to offer a /60 or /56. The choice would have been /64 or 
> nothing. Period.

The point is that it did happen. RIPE did give them enough address
space to offer customers more than a /64. That is the way things
should be because there is no shortage of IPv6 address space.

In fact, RIPE should refuse to give ISPs an allocation so small
that it forces them to offer customers anything longer than a
/56 prefix.

   
> I'd be perfectly fine with no new policy, as long as ISPs, 
> even relatively small ones, do not delay IPv6 deployment over 
> lack of obtainable space.

Yet another reason why RIPE should be liberal with IPv6 space.

In IPv4, a /32 will number one host. In IPv6, the same prefix
will provide many ISPs enough address space to last them 20
to 50 years. In IPv4, a /24 is something that you assign to
customers and a /21 is a small ISP. Why should we be more
restrictive in IPv6? I can see no good reason to not hand out
ISPs a /24 or a /21 if they need it to make their IPv6 access
service work.

Even though my employer, a rather large ISP, expects to fit
within a /21 with native IPv6 services, I do not see the need
to require every other ISP to use their IPv6 allocation as
efficiently as we do. Cost efficiency is more important, and
if a medium sized ISP needs a /21 in order to get their IPv6
service rolled out faster, then I believe we should give them 
that /21.

The sooner we get the IPv6 transition into full gear, the better
it will be for all of us. Network effects demand that we help our
competitors by removing any barriers that limit them or slow
them down.

--Michael Dillon