[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:
Yes, doubling does seem unwise. It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is allocated then another /12 is issued to the RIR.
Indeed. I see no point in unconditional doubling. I'm pretty confident that /12 blocks are large enough to serve a RIR long enough so that ordering a new /12 is not hampering anything. My suggestion would be to set aside a /8 per RIR (perhaps also a DNS reverse delegation for that) and allocate /12s to the RIRs upon their request. A RIR qualifies for a new /12 block as soon as nn% usage of the current /12 block is reached. nn might be 50% or more. As Randy suggests, the percentage should be low enough so that the RIRs can get new space without delaying allocation to LIRs (as it happens nowadays). Best regards, Daniel
The issue isn't about allocating a bigger netblock to the RIRs or not, the issue are more how big it should be. Anything bigger than /8 is shooting ourself in the foot and limiting our options when we in 10-20years figure out a much better way to use the address space. Even /12 is overkill but it will last for a while and we don't get more fragmentation of the IPv6 space than we have today with those ridiculous /23 allocation. Allocate maximum one /8 for each RIR and give them a /12 _now_, not in 1 years time! Just stop those /23 allocation... I'm still quite Junior and young compared to most of you, and I have no interest in getting into trouble with IPv6 in some years (20+) similar to what there are today with IPv4 due to we thought we could waste _too_ much of the address space:) ...Not to mention the trouble we for sure will have with regards to how to solve one of the unsolved "problems", multihoming.... just my 2 Euro cents:) (that we in 20+ years will face a situation where IPv6 most likely aren't usable, that's a total different story) On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:
Yes, doubling does seem unwise. It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is allocated then another /12 is issued to the RIR.
Indeed. I see no point in unconditional doubling. I'm pretty confident that /12 blocks are large enough to serve a RIR long enough so that ordering a new /12 is not hampering anything.
My suggestion would be to set aside a /8 per RIR (perhaps also a DNS reverse delegation for that) and allocate /12s to the RIRs upon their request. A RIR qualifies for a new /12 block as soon as nn% usage of the current /12 block is reached. nn might be 50% or more. As Randy suggests, the percentage should be low enough so that the RIRs can get new space without delaying allocation to LIRs (as it happens nowadays).
Best regards, Daniel
-- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------
On Wed 11 Aug 2004 15:38, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
no interest in getting into trouble with IPv6 in some years (20+) similar to what there are today with IPv4 due to we thought we could waste _too_ much of the address space:)
The trouble with v4 today is not scarcity. This is largely due to the policy, in recent years, of conservation over aggregation but that has resulted in it's own problems, like large routing tables, un-aggregateable prefixes, etc. I somehow find it hard to envision a situation where IPv6 conservation may become an issue, be it in 20 years or 50 - fragmented address space is IMO the far more pressing issue...
...Not to mention the trouble we for sure will have with regards to how to solve one of the unsolved "problems", multihoming....
Not getting in on this one... Regards, Sascha Luck -- DoO Eirconnect
participants (3)
-
Daniel Roesen -
Roger Jorgensen -
Sascha Luck