IPv6 policy and Supernational-LIRs

> To me, it would make sense to allocate a /3x to each and every one
> who has an AS#, and requests ipv6-space, then we would NOT have any
> problem like the above or with 'multihoming' either. It is not like
> the adresses would be used-up with this scenario..

I agree.  With the current to-be-implemented routing policy, having an
AS# is however not sufficient grounds for getting your own "portable"
IPv6 address space.  At least not the way I read it.

While it is true that the addresses would not be used up anytime soon
with this alternative address allocation scheme, I have understood the
fear to be that the routing table space would be consumed too quickly in
this scenario.  Apparently, in some regions getting the LIR status,
multiple service provider connections, and your own AS# is considered to
be "too easy" or "too cheap", so the practice would proliferate, and
routing table explosion would be the result.

However, as far as I know, none of the "alternative" ways to do
multihoming in the IPv6 world provide a service with similar
characteristics to the one we currently have in IPv4.  In a way, this is
a reflection of the fact that routing in IPv6 is just "more of the same"
compared to IPv4, and that the routing and particularly multihoming
issues from IPv4 have not been solved in IPv6.

The current IPv6 address allocation policy nevertheless appears to try
to implement routing aggregation through the RIR IPv6 allocation policy,
in that only the "big guys" can get an allocation from their RIR.  A
side effect of this is that it will take away smaller ISPs ability to
set their own routing policy, because they would need to go to their
upstream(s) to get IPv6 addresses, and it seems likely that strict
filtering of routing announcements on LIR allocation boundaries will be
implemented.

Regards,

- Håvard