[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Wed Oct 26 07:46:33 CEST 2011
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Martin Millnert wrote: > Seriously though, I cannot support a policy proposal for 6RD or other > transition technologies that burns this much v4 space ( ie , full > mapping of ipv4), that does not explicitly attach requirements on the > space to A) not be used for anything but the transition technology, and > B) clearly be marked by the NCC as being of transition tech $FOO, and > finally C) very explicitly be only valid as long as the use stays. I agree with the above. I do not like to blanket increase to /29 and keep it there for everybody, but I do want people using 6RD who need to map the entire IPv4 space (which isn't strictly needed, if you're a small network you can map just part of the IPv4 space into IPv6 space, for instance on /16 border instead of at /0. I also feel that 6RD justifies a /32, it doesn't justify a /30 or alike. 6RD is a transitioning tech that I would like to see gone in 5 years, and until then I believe a single /64 in the home should be enough for these transitioning tech users. When they get native IPv6, they can get their /56. If an ISP wants to give more space to their end users using 6RD, they'll have to do more granular 6RD mapping. So I guess my counter-proposal is to give everybody a /32, and if they say 6RD then they may get a /31 instead, with the additional /32 usage being reviewed every 5 years or so. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]