90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

Hiya Folks,

I would like to confirm what Gert wrote. Myself and *many* others stated 13
bits is not enough. There was definitely concensus on this point. There were
other comments about "H-ratio's" and why only 13 bits for a Global ISP when a
single user gets 80 bits and the RIR's 35. Other comments about Old IPv4
habits were also made.

A separate issue of avoiding non-4 bit boundaries was also made. Even ripe is
affected here since TWO reverse domain delegations are needed for each current
sub-TLA.

As a result, various persons (Randy,and I think Mirjam or Nurani) said the TLA
issues were going to be re-worked, and that RFC2928 would be made obselete.
This is essential in my view. However, either nothing is happening, or it is
all happening behind closed doors both of which are wrong in my opinion.

Cheers
Dave
(normally djp at djp.net but posting might be faster from this subscribed
address)


On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Gert Doering wrote:

->Hi,
->
->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