-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: It-Tnejn, 12 ta' Ġunju 2006 18:00 To: Stephen Camilleri Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Stefan,
Hence my submissions in this forum. Us small fry rarely get
On Jun 11, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Stefan Camilleri wrote: the chance
to globe trot to the various voting events!
RIPE-NCC uses in-person voting to determine policies?
Thanks for that. It does not seem well advertised but that's my problem I guess. I'll keep an eye open on this.
When do you expect to provide v6 services to your customers? Bottom line is I do not know.
Remember, the world ends on Dec 21, 2012 (according to the Mayans and Geoff Huston). Presumably, you'll want to begin offering v6 service sometime before that...
I got a different date on that even though RIPE policies permitting I'd still want to offer v6 within less than 4 years.
My customers have not yet requested it so how can I plan for any numbers.
It is called "marketing projections".
I see. So my hunch was right. Just throw in a bunch of numbers and keep on kidding ourselves
Plus not all my network components are yet up to a fully fledge rollout. For sure, however I'll have zero IPv6 networks unless I have some sort of fantasy plan for 200 /48's. I guess I don't see the big deal in coming up with a plan. If, by some chance, you don't meet the plan you specify, you can simply return the v6 space you were allocated, no? If you have allocated address space to customers, I would imagine RIPE-NCC could be convinced to give you a bit of extra time. (Perhaps that's a good place for policy revision?)
Exactly the point. THAT would be an intelligent policy so why all the fuss about wanting to retain the current policy!
(and who came up with this /48 assinment chunk anyway???)
The same folks who brought you a maximum of 4096 entries in the default-free zone.
With some reasonable policies in place there is room for everyone without fragmenting routing space
Fragmentation of the routing space occurs for two major reasons: multiple allocations from RIRs and traffic engineering. While the RIRs have some control over the first, it is the ISPs that are in control of the second. To date, there are quite a few more specifics announced in IPv4. Since IPv6 doesn't provide any additional mechanisms for TE, why wouldn't more specifics be announced in IPv6?
and with practically little to no one needing to ever apply for a /32 allocation within lifetimes.
You are aware, of course, that /19s and /20s of IPv6 address space have already been allocated, right? It'll be interesting to see how many more specifics get announced out of those allocations...
Yes. I was aware of that. Unfortunately IMHO, a bad start in the v6 allocation process.. But what's done is done.
That is .... if the /48 and /64 assignment policies can ever be re-written.
That's a different policy proposal.
I'm honestly curious: have you applied to RIPE for IPv6 address space and been rejected? Glad you've got the point ;-) .. And yes, I did apply and yes I was rejected.
Fascinating.
Truly awesome ... I'm doing my best to smile :-|
Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask.
Despite promises to the contrary, the IPng working group.
Rgds, -drc