proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure

>   > I don't think that there is anything wrong with your proposal. But
>   > for really estimating it, it is not concrete enough. It would be helpful
>   > to start the 'further discussion' on detailed policies such as 
>   > ranges for r.
> 
> I have not thought about that really.  Quite frankly there is a lot of
> missing information before one can get that concrete.  The most
> important piece missing is information on interdomain (exterior) routing
> schemes to be used.  That's why I pointed out Mike O'Dell's 8+8 draft. 
> Before routing becomes more clear any address allocation/assignment
> scheme needs to be very conservative in order not to preclude too many
> options in the high order bits.  It also has to have the label
> "preliminary, provisional" because it may otherwise become useless.  

That's a good point.
In fact, we are looking for a scalable and efficient (exterior) routing
scheme. Given that in the future there will be MANY ISPs worldwide
the vast amount of associations of provider-based prefixes to ASes
might impose a problem to the size of the routing tables.
So, there is some need to aggregate routes to providers.
Having regional prefixes is one option.


> In the light of this and the fact tht we are not exactly overwhelmed by
> ISPs asking for IPv6 address space I doubt whether we need to discuss
> concrete schemes at this point.  However we should keep this item on the
> agenda and have a discussion at the January RIPE meeting.  We should
> also watch developments at the upcoming IETF. 

Yes, be prepared :-)

	Frank