* Filiz Yilmaz <filiz@ripe.net> [2009-04-07 12:48]:
PDP Number: 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 5 May 2009.
Hi, if I understand this proposal correctly, you want to give a /27 to an LIR or end user so that they can do NAT-PT or something like that? First: It won't work. Most people I know filter prefixes smaller than /24 in the DFZ. They will not see these allocations. You can't assume that they will change their filters for this. I would estimate that most of them won't. Many can't do this because it will not fit in their RIB/FIB. So if you do this you would have to give out a /24 at least. Second: We do want to facilitate deployment of IPv6. I think this proposal could be counterproductive. You're splitting up the remaining space in smaller peaces so that more people can use IPv4 for a longer timespan. And if you have to give out /24s you can bet that people will use it for other things besides NAT-PT etc. Third: Is it necessary? You already have to demonstrate a need for address space if you want a new allocation. If an LIR already has an allocation I assume that they can spare an /27 for IPv6 transition. If you have a new LIR you allocate them a /21 if they can demonstrate the need for it, no change there. Kind Regards, Sebastian -- GPG Key-ID: 0x76B79F20 (0x1B6034F476B79F20) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant