Hi WG, Op 19 jul 2011, om 00:04 heeft Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg het volgende geschreven:
Daniel wrote:
[no, I'm not advocating senseless waste - but what's "wasting" and "making use of a technology to realize improvements in operational cost" is probably very much in the eye of the beholder]
I must agree here. If you do the math, you come up with "we do have enough addresses, even if we give any human on earth hundreds of /48" (and I hope nobody really wants to do). But as we are at the luxury point where saving address space isn't really that big issue, why shoud we make network design more difficult by introducing artificial obstacles that possible saves some addresse? From my point of view IPv6 address policy should focus on: a) making IPv6 easy deployable b) keeping the dfz table as small as possible without restrains to IPv6 deployment c) allowing clean network design even if that comes with the cost of a reasonable amount of additional address space usage
Obviously, we also should keep in mind that the IPv6 space is huge but finite so we should make sure that we will not run low on address space at some point.
To sum things up, I think the HD-Ratio of .94 is not what we want as it makes future deployment more difficult without any real reason.
I think Immo has given a good summary of what I heard on this list and from some people at the last RIPE meeting. Scott also brought this to our attention:
FYI, a number of folks had this same issue in the ARIN region, and as a result policy ARIN-2010-12 (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_12.html) was proposed, adopted, and implemented to address the problem.
Considering the amount of messages here related to this subject I think we should start working towards a formal policy proposal. Jan Žorž has already started working on a related proposal (see his message a few minutes ago on this list) so I think it might be a good idea to start from there. Thanks, Sander