According to Hamid Alipour:
The thing that I would like you consider is that we have enough address space availble trough IPv6. I have two remarks here:
1- why should IPv6 address space alocation follow the same procedure as IPv4
Well, it's not the same procedure ;-) There is a different (if administratively similar!) set of guidelines and procedures in place for obtaining an sTLA to enable an Internet Service Provider to design and build an IPv6-based service. It has taken of lot of effort and discussion to propose, refine, review and finally agree, on the current set of guidelines. There is a lot of documents out there (RFCs, drafts, allocation guidelines) documenting the current lines of thinking. Of course, as the Internet evolves, there's going to be a constant need for review, refinement and - probably - changes.
while we had address space limitation there and we do not have address space limitation in IPv6 then we must ease address space allocation in IPv6.
I think you should consider the fact that an IP-Address in *itself* (be that v4 or v6) is only of limited use. In most cases, it only becomes a valuable resource as soon as a set of addresses (a "prefix") gets configured in a real network and announced on the routing layer.
currently I have to run a procedure for each end user who whishes to get address space
Having gone through the procedure with RIPE to acquire an sTLA, I'm not able to remember that requirement?!
and I have ensure RIPE that the address space is really needed.end users do not have this permistion to reserve address space.
Let's assume for a minute that there is no feedback loop in place which requires "you", or anyone else, to document your need - how much of the "vast" IPv6 address space would you want to reserve for your <"insert your organisation here">? One quarter? Only 20%? What would be a "fair" percentage for your <"organisation">?
that's ok while we are dealing with IPv4 , but what about IPv6? all of us know that designing a network with larger address space is easier and we can consider further developments too, address space is not fragmented and the network can run with higher performance. routers will have smaller routing tables and we can save RAM and CPU resources.due to limited address space in IPv4 it was not possible. optimizations was based on minimizing required address space , with IPv6 we can optimize the network design based on less resource usage and higher performance.
2- make address space allocation in IPv6 Localized. we can allocate some prefixes for countries , say put aside 2 bytes of address space. no? put aside 3 bytes, more or less put some space for countries. in 2 byte version we would have 65536 country codes while we do not have such amount of countries.RIRs can assign some prefix to companies which act international.let say a company whishes to act nation wide after a while he decides to have an office in an other country. he must register his office in that country and get some permission for his activities there, let they get an address space assignment from LIR in that country besides other permissions they have to get.they can do this or negotiate with a IR to get a multi-national or international prefix. how much effort is needed for this? and compare it with this procedure that I have to negotiate and get approval from RIPE whenever an ISP in my country needs address space.
I think we have been through that one more than once, and I do not see any reason why the answer for IPv6 could be fundamentally different from the answer for IPv4. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 __________________________________________________________________________