90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

I would like to add although we are not a supernational registry and all
that implies ;) we have the same issue. We have been allocated our start up
space in IPv6 which is fine for now but would it not be better to be more
forward thinking when allocating IPv6 space and allocate enough space to
aggregate fully throughout the EMEA region and so implement the best
possible aggregation. This is not just a cry for more space because we are
big so we deserve it, we are seriously looking to a time when IPv6 is used
in anger and we have to do real aggregation throughout EMEA. We do not want
to assign IPv6 on a per LIR basis, rather sub-allocate IPv6 space to our
current LIR structure since we are all in the same network it makes sense.
BTW we are currently writing our internal IPv6 deployment policy.

Regards,
Stephen Burley
UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Aldridge" <jhma at KPNQwest.net>
To: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber at cc.univie.ac.at>
Cc: <lir-wg at ripe.net>; <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made


> "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote:
> >   I think we were talking about increasing the size of a sTLA (when the
> >   requirement for that can be documented), rather than allocating
another
> >   sTLA?!
>
> OK, my last mail was maybe a bit terse.  Some background might help.
>
> We (KPNQwest, formerly EUnet) are a "supernational" registry.  In the IPv4
> world this is much like having 6 individual large registries with the
> corresponding number of open allocations that implies.
>
> Now, in the IPv6 world I'm told that we can't get an IPv6 sTLA for our
direct
> backbone customers or for any of our other national networks because
KPNQwest
> Finland (covered by the eu.eunet supernational registry) already has our
one
> sub-TLA.
>
> Of course, that one sub-TLA gives us a total amount of address space which
is
> adequate for our current requirements for the whole network but once this
is
> split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their
own
> routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable
> routing...
>
> James
>
>
> >   Also, I seem to remember that the NCC reserves some space in the
address
> >   tree for that, so you might be able to obtain a "2nd" sTLA
back-to-back
> >   with the original one, which is equivalent to decreasing the prefix
> >   length.
> >
> >   I guess you would be free to structure that (combined/extended)
address
> >   space internally (for distribution to customers by more than one
> >   operational unit).
> >
> >   But probably I am missing something essential here.
> >
> >   Wilfried.
> >   ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Of course, there would be at least one more sub-TLA allocated if the
IPv4
> > rules for supernational registries were to be applied to IPv6 instead of
> > restricting these to only having a single sub-TLA allocation... :-(
> >
> > James
> >
> > --
> > James Aldridge,  Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture)
> >                  KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
> >                  Tel: +31 70 379 37 03; GSM: +31 65 370 87 07
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> ---
> >  _________________________________:_____________________________________
> >   Wilfried Woeber                 : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
> >   UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
> >   Universitaetsstrasse 7          : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
> >   A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe  : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
> >  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >   First things first, but not necessarily in that order....
>