90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
Gert Doering gert at space.net
Thu Aug 9 11:18:15 CEST 2001
Hi, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:36:15AM +0100, Stephen Burley wrote: > 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. As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, one thing that was voiced repeatedly was "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself is not enough" (considering hierarchical strutures - either due to multinational networks, or due to hierarchies of resellers having re-selling customers themselves - 13 bits to work in is just not enough). Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start space*(!). It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are being way too conservative. Old IPv4 habits...? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
[ lir-wg Archives ]