Re: IPv6 Allocation Policy

Hi,

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 10:31:06PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> So, I'd like to ask the community here if they are aware of any issues
> with the current policy. 

The "200 /48 assignments" rule doesn't work for transit-only ISPs that
need to have IPv6 for their services (mail, etc.) and their network
(routers).  As far as I understand, there are only a couple of networks 
that are affected by this, but they are the most important ones for
"native" IPv6 deployment.

A possible approach to tackle this, if it turns out in the end that we
keep the "200 /48" rule is to change the rule into:

  "200 /48 assignments, OR 20 downstream ASes"

(for the cases that I'm aware of, this would solve the problem without
giving out blocks too easily).


The second problems is a minor one: the 3GPP people want to give /64s 
out (and ONLY /64s) so they feel that they might fulfill the intent of
the policy but not its letter.

I personally think this is just a wording thing, as they are certainly
not the ones that "we" want to keep from getting proper IPv6 blocks.


The third issue is that site-locals got deprecated at the IETF, so we
need to find a solution for large enterprises that do not want to 
connect to the public IPv6 internet, but still need unique numbers for
their network (and their VPN connections to customers and suppliers).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  54495  (54267)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: [email protected]
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6