Niall, Niall Richard Murphy <niallm-ripe@enigma.ie> writes: * On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:11:17AM +0000, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: * * Hi Mir et al, * * Please below find my preliminary thoughts/comments on this document. * * [Aspirations preserved, so we can remember them later] * > - The allocation criteria should be such that it is easy to obtain * > IPv6 address space. * * > - The size of the initial allocation should be large enough to allow * > flexibility in addressing infrastructure and customer sites. * * > 1. to recognise existing infrastructure (both IPv4 and IPv6) where it * > exists and calculate IPv6 address needs based on existing networks. * * > 2. to apply the slow start mechanism only for 'IPv6 only' networks * > without existing IPv4 infrastructure * * > 3. to reduce the minimum allocation size for those IPv6 only networks * > (unless larger requirements are shown) * * > 4. to measure the utilisation rate with the HD ratio rather than * > percentages * * > 5. to make subsequent allocations when the HD ratio is reached * * > 3.1. Case 1 - Existing IPv4 services * * > Additional policies may require the return of IPv4 address space to * > the RIR or upstream ISP, in the case the existing network is * > renumbered to the new IPv6 space in future. * * Am I alone in wondering exactly what the scope of these additional policies * may be? My concern is based on the fact that although existing v4 networks * may well acquire v6 space, they are likely to need their v4 space for quite * some years to come, and hence it would be unrealistic to require the * return of all v4 address space. I agree with you that there will probably be a long transition period. The assumption however is that a network will at some stage be fully migrated to IPv6 and the IPv4 addresses will not be needed anymore. * * (Or maybe I misunderstand...) * * > 4. Size of Initial Allocation * * > For new networks without existing infrastructure, it is proposed to * > establish a minimum allocation for IPv6 address space. It is suggested * > to keep the size of the initial allocation relatively small (a /35 or * > smaller) and to determine the size of subsequent allocations based on * > the utilisation rate of the initial allocation (this is called slow * > start mechanism). This will allow easy access to IPv6 allocations for * > newcomers. At the same time possible wastage of address space and * > routing table growth will be limited. * * These v6 allocations are made from the RIR (ex TLA) space, correct? * yes. * So, are we abandoning the model where only the biggest networks go to * the RIRs for space, and everyone else goes to them? We learned that the old TLA/NLA/SLA boundaries were no technical requirements in the address format. In addition to that we know from experience that it is very difficult to define and verify what a transit ISP is. Therefore we propose to use a policy that treats all organisations equally. The RIRs cannot decide who is allowed to have a top level IPv6 allocation. The ISPs themselves have much better mechanisms to address routing table growth. Mirjam