[ Did I mention that I totally object against this proposal, well here again: I fully object against 2008-02 ] Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
* Pekka Savola wrote:
I don't think the current allocation criteria for /32 are prohibitive for ISPs. I'd like to hear feedback on experiences to the countrary.
As a result, it's not obvious which problem this is trying to solve
The current procedere is not prohibitive, but requires an extra effort and mostly LIR internal approvments from the financial and legal departments as well as interaction with the company leaders directly.
If the company is not backing it, then they are never going to really use it. Then what is the point of providing the address space to them? So that they can play with it a bit, and then neglect it and cause issues for other ISPs? Really, we have been trying to clean up a lot of mess already, don't add even more cruft. Layer 8 issues like those should not be resolved at the RIR level, it should be resolved inside the LIR that has them. I like to see a lot of organizations doing IPv6 and try and help them out wherever I can, but if Layer 8 doesn't want it, then just forget about it, you've done your job by trying, document it properly and laugh in their faces when they come "we need it yesterday" by doing your bureaucratic trick of showing them the documentation.
Technicans who want to play with or deploy IPv6 are asked: a) is this really necessary, b) who will be responsibile, c) what's the bussiness case and d) where is the ROI timetable.
If the company is not backing it, then nobody is responsible, we can't have that. If the techies still can't describe why they need this and what the business case is, then IMNSHO they should be looking for a new job. They might also try and actually get involved in the community called "Internet Operations" (RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, NANOG etc etc etc) [Oh and yes I know how companies think about this, but if your company doesn't support it, move on, too bad, you tried, next!] Sorry, but that really is a BAD argument for even going in this direction. Currently there are already enough ISP's who have simply requested a /32, even though they have a customer base well over the 100.000 mark, which would thus mean they need much more than the /32 they get, but clearly because they are not interested at all in actually providing actual IPv6 connectivity to their customers, they didn't even look at the request form they filled in and thought "/32, that is a lot", but it is only 65.535 /48's, thus you can only serve 60k customers. Funny thing is then that people do 'complain' when some ISP gets a /20 with comments like "that is a lot", till they realize it is only a few million /48's and that the customer base of that ISP is really huge. The target for IPv6 allocations should be: 1 allocation per ISP*. If we are going to auto allocate a /32 or something else to everybody that creates a huge explosion in the allocation table, next to that, most of those prefixes don't even fit the organization, what should a multi-million customer organization do with a /32? As such it will only create a very fragmented allocation, some used, some not, many not returned, or even more fun, that they need to renumber out of it at a certain point and might want to keep it as they "can't", thus causing multiple prefixes for that ISP et voila we are back to mess we have in IPv4. Please don't let it go into that direction. Greets, Jeroen (*1) = clearly this is already 1 allocation per ISP per RIR region, seeing that several organizations have requested a /48 or a /32 at the more prominent RIRs.