Hiya Folks,
I would like to elaborate on a comment made at the end of the LIR/IPv6 session
in Prague about the ability of IPv6 address space requesters to forecast their
address requirements. These suggestions probably might not make it into the
provisional policy, but should be considered for later policy.
A large ISP, probably global, and certainly national, could build its entire
infrastructure with a single /48 network block. For example this would allow
256 "locations", each with 256 networks, each with more hosts than ants on
this planet.... With the popular /127 for point-point connections even
customer lines can be accomodated.
Accordingly, the only driver for longer prefixes would seem to be the /48
customer networks. How will applicants for IPv6 address allocations quantify
these networks ?
The only way I can see is from very early marketing forcasts.
In the past RIPE have viewed marketing forecasts with a lot of suspicion
(quite rightly). However, unless RIPE issue a "one size fits all" prefix they
may have to base allocations on these marketing forecasts.
One thing however can be relatively easily determined, and that is "whether an
applicant has ANY customers".
For those LIR WITHOUT any customers, we could allocate a /48 and even large
multinational corporations would have plenty of addresses (see second
paragraph above again).
For those LIR WITH customers, we should be much more generous because we
cannot accurately judge needs from marketing forecasts. Assuming a HD ratio of
0.8, then a moderately successful city carrier LIR with 100,000 DSL or Cable
customers (each requiring a /48) will qualify for more than a /28 allocation.
Do we want such LIRs to come back and ask for a second route (in the global
routing table) ?
Conclusion:
1. We should consider allocating a /48 to LIR without any customers as this
is plenty.
2. Even a /28 would result in considerable numbers of followup requests if
cable/DSL customers (mass users) get /48.
Opinions, Comments, Concensus ?
Cheers
Dave
