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

I am not proposing a change with respect to existing RFCs; we must to live 
with existing /64 subnets as a minimum allocation.

My comments apply for future networks beyond the current 2000::/3 range used 
by all RIRs. Beyond this range all options are still open.

-Ahmed


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:23 PM
To: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

> On 7/19/11 1:10 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
>> Currently the smallest network of physical devices (a home user's
>> subnet) gets the largest block of addresses (/64 in size) from the LIR.
>> There is a logic issue here.
>>
>> Thus we get the need for larger LIR IPv6 allocations. And dependencies
>> on /64 subnets go beyond SLAAC and ND.
>>
>> If/when RIPE has a say on what happens beyond 2000::/3, where /64
>> subnets are required, then we can come up with ideas on smallest subnet
>> size. Hardware should be sophisticated enough by then to handle such
>> practical needs in case bit alignment is an issue.
>
> Please, stop here. Do not go any further.
>
> We are taking all possible measures to discourage development and 
> deployment of devices and mechanisms that would enable use of prefixes 
> shorter than /64 in one link-layer network.
>
> For example with initial /32 you could deploy 6RD in one 6RD domain, but 
> would give to user only one /64. In this case sooner or later the need 
> will emerge to develop something that magically enables you to split /64 
> to more subnets and actually use that. This is all about adding another 
> layer of complexity and indirection to already messy world. That's one of 
> reasons we are discouraging assignments of /64 to a user. Use /56 or /48 
> instead and avoid the pain later.
>
> Cheers, Jan
>