[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

On 11/04/2017 10:40, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
> Hello,

Hey,

Thnx for your time and effort to read the draft, much appreciated!

> 
> a few (late) comments:
> 
> 3.1.1: When exactly is this a good idea and why reference an old
> draft?(We have 6164)
> 3.1.4 ULA: Since numerous problems may be caused by this approach, I
> believe that more than one should be mentioned

Any suggestion what to add (and not to make it too long)?

> 3.2.1: users not being able to use all 4 hex digits can lead to
> erroneous allocations outside of /56? This sounds a bit stretched

People does strange things ;)

> 3.2.1: which mechanisms use a default /48 prefix size? Could you please
> elaborate a bit?

That was some tunneling mechanisms, Jordi can explore more. I would just
remove that section, but Jordi wants to elaborate on this ;)

> 3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many /32 we
> need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users and our
> /29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that?

Why not ;) If you burn your IPv6 space, you get new allocation. This
should not be a problem, specially because RIPE NCC default mathematics
is based on /48-per-customer, at least that's what I remember.

> 4.2. even though I generally agree that dynamic assignments have more
> disadvantages (than benefits), the need to have a logging system is
> usually not one of them, as most (if not all) ISPs have that covered
> long before IPv6 (e.g. RADIUS accounting)

ack.

> 
> As more general final comment, I believe that such a document would
> definitely benefit operators just starting out

Thnx!!!

Cheers, Jan

> 
> cheers,
> Yannis
> 
> On 03/27/2017 04:32 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
>> Dear RIPE IPv6 WG,
>>
>> As promised at last RIPE meeting in Madrid, we produced a first draft of
>> "Best Current Operational Practice for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment
>> for end-users - static (stable) or dynamic (non-stable) and what size to
>> choose."
>>
>> The aim of this document is to document the best current operational
>> practice on what size of IPv6 prefix ISPs should assign/delegate to
>> their customers and should they delegate it in a stable, static way or
>> should it change over time.
>>
>> Please find the PDF attached and also accessible at:
>>
>> https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf
>>
>> We are submitting this document to RIPE IPv6 WG (here) to check the
>> technical validity of the document and also get consensus on it. We are
>> also submitting it to RIPE BCOP TF to check if this is a
>> real best operational practice and get consensus on it there.
>>
>> Please, read the document and send back comments to this mailing list.
>> All feedback is more than welcome.
>>
>> On behalf of co-authors, Jan Ε½orΕΎ
>>
>> P.S: This document is not intended to document what practices may
>> be in future and what they might look like, but to reflect the best
>> methods of implementing IPv6 at the time of publication. Updates to this
>> document will be published to reflect changes in best current practices
>> where there are developments in standards and implementations.
> 
>