North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)

  • From: Christopher Morrow
  • Date: Wed Dec 19 14:42:19 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=olpw2+Gzqc0u7imh4XXh5TCNdYkXJUEeQrq8GfWN7oo=; b=t9Pt3erL7etFh/q3aX1M1kzUWVl0Zffhs9SBtBFDGtmVHV4d+0Ia/kK1wJfrz6TKrDFbKrnJWc3tnN6fD3wXIulboMEgrCgDGMPlUvo21nEzeEDVLquEpyV8CCBEw7aA6YugdmqSn5DsGkgXjcVHwX0JJVn5O2/ItvLETp+mTiw=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nXrp/rbjyT2zmlhudwaaTgoTajJWW4llSYKwLphi7NE550iDLwsKrp6oXfWRfyx5YvvhypZHbmwVzgF0obWS67Tl0uahgstpH0POmVOli1wWZWfSF8tsQNY4/wUA9hXz17L33EzdH/RpMHnAREEQyogVdmkAniKBFS6uBlUfsHg=
On Dec 19, 2007 5:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > "new" as in "We already have one, but we actually didn't really know
> > what we where requesting, now we need more"
>
> We got our current block in 2000 (or earlier, I don't know for sure, but
> 2000 at the latest). So yes, we didn't know what we were doing back then.
> Then again, I'd say nobody knew back then.
>

I'd say it's fair to bet that quite a few folks in all regions pursued
ipv6 allocations more than 3-5 years ago when the policy was
essentially '/32 per provider, simply show a business plan for
providing services to 200+ customers in the next N years' (without
much in the way of planning or proof-of-planning).

> > That is exactly what it is for. Then again, if you actually had
> > *PLANNED* your address space like you are supposed to when you make a
> > request you could have already calculated how much address space you
> > really needed and then justify it to the $RIR. In case you have to go
> > back to ask the $RIR for more you already made a mistake while doing the
> > initial request...
>
> The world tends to change in 7 years. You seem to like bashing people for
> not knowing future policy and changes 7 year ahead of time, which I think
> it quite sad.

in the case of allocation policy for ipv6 things have changed
significantly in the last 2-3 years certainly. It's probably also
important to look further in the future than the current RIR policy
decision process requires. ARIN/RIPE (atleast) have a 2 year planning
horizon for LIR allocations, this isn't sufficient for ipv6 which is
supposed to last significantly longer and be as limited in
prefix/entity as possible. Some large providers are attempting to plan
5-10 years out for address policy if possible, not everyone has that
luxury, but in the end we (internet routing community) want limited
prefixes/org that means planning horizons have to be adjusted up from
2yrs to <something else>.

-Chris