On Fri, 23 May 2003, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
Hi. (...)
Speaking as "me personally" (this is not the official WG chair speaking here, just a concerned IPv6 user!), I have the following comments:
- The /23 allocations ICANN -> RIRs are bad, because they lead to address space fragmentation, and the blocks are too small to do useful allocation towards the LIRs. Something NEEDS to be changed here.
- Nevertheless, I do NOT like the idea of a "common address pool". People want to be able to see the "region" that a prefix is coming from by looking at the address.
Yes. At this point in IPv6 mainly to judge which path its best... through tunnels (reaching far, but higher rtts) or native (short reach, but better rtts) (...)
- If people *really* go into "multiple /48s per site" multihoming, source address selection works by doing a longest-match check, and this will work better if same-region addresses have something like a common prefix, instead of "everythins smeared everywhere".
Agree.
So my personal recommendation would be:
- change the /23 allocation boundary ICANN -> RIR to something more useful, like a /12 or so (a /12 means "512 of them are available, so we're not yet burning bridges - but a /8 would work as well. A /16 is already somewhat tight).
Agree. Bigger ICANN->RIR allocs, fewer (and aggregated) prefixes to memorize. (...) One thing we should perhaps consider about this (/8s, /12s or /16s) is seeing the % of LIRs that ask/get v6 addresses, in order to make some growth calculation... (For my country, i've recently seen this figure and it is < 20%) Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167