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

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>> 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'm sure Free would have been happy to get a /22 vs. a /26, and might 
even pass that on to its customers via a /56 vs. a /60.
>    
>   
>> 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.
>   
I agree 100%, I'm just telling you my experience in talking with ISPs. 
In some cases, it starts with "why not a /128?" then once we get to the 
point that /64 is really the absolute minimum, then /56 is is the next 
target. It's often a battle just to get to that point though.
> 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.
A /21 should be ample for any ISP to run 6rd and several other native 
services as well.
> 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.
>   
Absolutely. The value of the network, and the protocol it runs on, is 
proportional to the square of the users of course.

- Mark
> --Michael Dillon
>
>
>