IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion
All, From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE meeting. Now, if the /48 allocation is the way to proceed, I feel that all initial /35 allocations should be initially changed to /29 as the first step. This can be done easily as all allocations have the /29 reserved to ensure a contiguous block. However a /29 allows for 524,288 /48, again if the whole subTLA is used. So at the same time the 80% utilisation section of the document needs to be worded correctly to allow ISPs to apply for subsequent subTLA's. Also I would like to ask the following question: How do we move from the current allocations of /29 & /35 to RFC2374 (IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format) and at what stage will this happen? Otherwise I can see organisations holding multiple subTLA before moving to the address structure in RFC2374, and more renumbering pain. Regards, Stuart Stuart Prevost --------------------------------------------------- IP Specialist, Futures Testbed Tel: +44 1473 646891 Fax: +44 1473 643906 Mobile: +44 7801 977290 Email: stuart.prevost@bt.com Addr: B29/136 - Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich. Suffolk. IP5 3RE
Hi, On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:47:30PM +0100, stuart.prevost@bt.com wrote:
From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!!
I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE meeting.
Exactly this was the reason from our side for welcoming the /48, /56, /64 suggestion: having more "elbow space" in the /35 allocated to us, being able to do reasobale NLA structuring (to our resellers, and to *their* resellers). regards, Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Now we're getting to the point I think. We are messing around doing slow start and sub-allocations inside sub-TLAs, ignoring that fact that all the sub-TLAs together only eat up one TLA, and we have thousands of TLAs available. There is no need to impose these artificial constraints on the ISPs. Brian Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:47:30PM +0100, stuart.prevost@bt.com wrote:
From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!!
I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE meeting.
Exactly this was the reason from our side for welcoming the /48, /56, /64 suggestion: having more "elbow space" in the /35 allocated to us, being able to do reasobale NLA structuring (to our resellers, and to *their* resellers).
regards,
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Brian E Carpenter -
Gert Doering -
stuart.prevost＠bt.com