On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Florian Frotzler wrote:
Sorry, I am not following, what do you mean with "the" connectivity model?
Apologies, I should have said 'allocation' instead of 'connectivity'. You appear to be assuming a small number of LIRs because that's what we have now. Given the proliferation of PI allocation policies and the likelihood (at least in my mind) of increased dependence on IP connectivity as a basic service implying less tolerance for even momentary outages resulting in increased demand for multi-homing, it is unclear to me that the current model will hold.
@second: you are talking about the "001" FP space,
Yes.
I see plenty of reserved space if needed,
You may see it, but to put that space into play would require the IETF to tell IANA that another FP has been specified as global unicast since we blew through 001 because we were allocating 1,099,511,627,776 /64s to every ISP that asked. Might be a bit of a hard sell.
also again the scope of the discussion is limited to ISPs who need the address space to do 6RD or similar transition methods, no one is asking to change the minimum allocation size to /24. I don´t assume that millions of ISPs will do 6RD.
As has been pointed out by others, why bother accepting the minimum when you can simply (and honestly) claim 6RD? Regards, -drc