[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 05:25:49PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
> The current policy doesn't permit the RIPE NCC to give out extra
> address space for an existing allocation until the HD ratio has
> been reached.

And this translates to "you have to support at least ~6.2 million
customers with the /32 before being eligliable for more".

Unfortunately, for shops that are living in the same order of magnitude
size wise, this does not really translate to pretty and future-proof
addressing concepts with polished internal aggregation on site and
aggregation router levels, depending on how many sites and aggregation
routers you have, what's your growth you need to account for in those
numbers, and what's the variance of # of customers per aggregation
router (leading to DHCPv6-PD pool sizing).

Changing /48 to /56 as size-of-measurement is one problem, but raising
the HD ratio from 0.8 to 0.94 was the killer. For us, it's the
difference between a ~/22 (former) and a /32 (now). 10 bits less to
design a scaling internal addressing plan without introducing kludges
and/or having to largely re-shuffle large parts every couple of years.

Another theoretical advantage of IPv6 compared to IPv4 practically (in
part) down the drain. Good that we saved some scarce addresses. :-/

[no, I'm not advocating senseless waste - but what's "wasting" and
"making use of a technology to realize improvements in operational cost"
is probably very much in the eye of the beholder]

> They are allowed to give more than a /32 when someone requests a
> new allocation though.

"the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and
the extent of the organisation's infrastructure."

I wonder wether the HD ratio 0.94 rule will be the one this is being
judged by. Abovementioned latter criteria is _very_ subjective. :-)

> After reading the policies with this in mind I can only conclude
> that the RIPE NCC is implementing the policy correctly. If we want
> the NCC to do something else someone has to write a policy proposal.

I haven't heard anyone complaining about too small allocations with HD
ratio 0.8 in effect. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between 0.8 and
0.94.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0