Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
If there is going to be a route in the global routing table then it is better for that route to be a /32 rather than to ambiguously allow for longer prefixes. Therefore, RIPE, and all other RIRs, should give organizations a /32 if they intend to announce routes in the global IPv6 routing table.
This does not waste IPv6 space since a /32 is a very small fraction of the IPv6 address space. In fact, it is the same as an IPv4 /32 when measured as a percentage of the total IPv4 address space.
I appreciate that, but how then does an organisation that can only qualify for a /48 from x upstream participate? Many Hosting providers (rather than connectivity providers) are going to end up shafted by that ideal. Or are we simply moving everybody up a subnet, i.e. LIRs now get /24...? Either way we end up with the same argument, just with longer or shorter prefixes. Or are we lobbying for the criteria as a LIR to be relaxed...? Hosting suppliers are seemingly getting the raw end of this deal and seen as IPv6 will be de fact one day and they need redundancy and multi-path, etc. I would think now would be the time to accomodate them. -- Best regards, Cameron Gray Director, Netegral Limited www.netegral.co.uk | cgray@netegral.co.uk 0871 277 NTGL (6845)