new IPv6 policy framework

Niall,

 Niall Richard Murphy <niallm-ripe at enigma.ie> writes:
  * On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:11:17AM +0000, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
  * 
  * Hi Mir et al,
  * 
  * Please below find my preliminary thoughts/comments on this document.
  * 
  * [Aspirations preserved, so we can remember them later]
  * > - The allocation criteria should be such that it is easy to obtain
  * >   IPv6 address space.
  *  
  * > - The size of the initial allocation should be large enough to allow
  * >   flexibility in addressing infrastructure and customer sites.
  *  
  * > 1. to recognise existing infrastructure (both IPv4 and IPv6) where it
  * >    exists and calculate IPv6 address needs based on existing networks.
  *  
  * > 2. to apply the slow start mechanism only for 'IPv6 only' networks
  * >    without existing IPv4 infrastructure
  *  
  * > 3. to reduce the minimum allocation size for those IPv6 only networks
  * >    (unless larger requirements are shown)
  *  
  * > 4. to measure the utilisation rate with the HD ratio rather than
  * >    percentages
  *  
  * > 5. to make subsequent allocations when the HD ratio is reached
  *  
  * > 3.1. Case 1 - Existing IPv4 services
  *  
  * > Additional policies may require the return of IPv4 address space to
  * > the RIR or upstream ISP, in the case the existing network is
  * > renumbered to the new IPv6 space in future.
  * 
  * Am I alone in wondering exactly what the scope of these additional policies
  * may be? My concern is based on the fact that although existing v4 networks
  * may well acquire v6 space, they are likely to need their v4 space for quite
  * some years to come, and hence it would be unrealistic to require the
  * return of all v4 address space.


I agree with you that there will probably be a long transition
period. The assumption however is that a network will at some stage be
fully migrated to IPv6 and the IPv4 addresses will not be needed
anymore. 

  * 
  * (Or maybe I misunderstand...)
  *  
  * > 4. Size of Initial Allocation
  *  
  * > For new networks without existing infrastructure, it is proposed to
  * > establish a minimum allocation for IPv6 address space. It is suggested
  * > to keep the size of the initial allocation relatively small (a /35 or
  * > smaller) and to determine the size of subsequent allocations based on
  * > the utilisation rate of the initial allocation (this is called slow
  * > start mechanism). This will allow easy access to IPv6 allocations for
  * > newcomers. At the same time possible wastage of address space and 
  * > routing table growth will be limited.
  *  
  * These v6 allocations are made from the RIR (ex TLA) space, correct? 
  * 

yes.

  * So, are we abandoning the model where only the biggest networks go to
  * the RIRs for space, and everyone else goes to them?

We learned that the old TLA/NLA/SLA boundaries were no technical
requirements in the address format. In addition to that we know from
experience that it is very difficult to define and verify what a
transit ISP is.  Therefore we propose to use a policy that treats all
organisations equally.  The RIRs cannot decide who is allowed to have
a top level IPv6 allocation. The ISPs themselves have much better
mechanisms to address routing table growth.

Mirjam