Hi, On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:33:04PM +0000, James Aldridge wrote:
I don't understand why "not giving out multiple IPv6 blocks" is "against the aggregation principles".
Could you elaborate on this?
The old IPv6 policy gave a single /35 to a supernational registry. This meant [..] However, that was the old IPv6 policy...
Now I understand your point. Yes, under the old IPv6 policy, there was no way a "decentralized entity" could do proper networking and aggregation. This is why the new policy has so much focus on "be liberal in judging address space requests", "HD ratio", and so on. I hope it will work.
Being a bit more relaxed in judging whether a multinational LIR really needs a "/22" (to be a bit extreme) would mimic the "IPv4 approach" (give out more space than usual) fairly well.
... yes, I'm sure this would help. The supernational LIR adds a few extra levels of hierarchy here:
- RIR - Supernational LIR - "sub-LIR" - sub-LIR's ISP customers (who are either not LIRs or LIRs who don't meet current IPv6 criteria) - end-user assignments
Of course. And what makes this worse is that the "sub/national-LIR" level is visible in external BGP, which is not the case for "normal" hierachical allocations.
If a hierarchy such as this could be used to justify a larger-than-/32 allocation then I don't think that big supernational registries would have any particular problems.
I would strongly favour this approach. Of course I do not speek for the IPv6 WG or the NCC. But I think the new policy is meant to be read that way, and "if we waste a /16 on all of the 10 (?) every supernational LIRs", so what (being provocative again). Conservation is NOT a high-prio issue. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45201 (45114) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299