Hi Jørgen,
What’s the point of a BCOP if we shouldn’t pay much attention to it? Is the BCOP wrong, or is the allocation policy too rigid?
Sadly, the newer generation of stateless IPv6 transition technologies, such as MAP and lw4over6 etc., trade flow tracking complexity for more rigid, complex, and pre-planned addressing plans.
My point (and I believe Gert’s also) is that larger IPv6 allocations shouldn’t be difficult when the RIPE NCC is provided with justification. The debate I’ve hijacked this thread for, is what constitutes sufficient justification?
-Richard
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Jørgen Hovland <jorgen@ssc.net>
Date: Monday, 21 January 2019 at 17:10
Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
I don't think the point of IPv6 is to spend, spend, spend either.
A limited resource will always run out. If you think you are going to need a quadruple billion IP-addresses on every LAN, then sure go a head and spend.
I would however not pay much attention to a BCOP that recommends /48 for businesses, /56 for residential, /54 for single moms and /52 for Fortnite players.
The moment you start hardcoding prefixlengths into your design, or any number for that matters, you are certainly not going to have a future proof network...
Jørgen