[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

[owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net]

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Mon Jul 10 03:26:37 2000
Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA83260
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:26:33 +1000 (EST)
Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14380; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:26:11 +0100
Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine04.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.44]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA16470; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:26:16 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <3968909A.E0C7E977@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:47:54 -0500
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: matthew.ford@bt.com
CC: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr, stephenb@uk.uu.net,
        ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com,
        arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net,
        jonathan.2.stevens@bt.com, peter.hovell@bt.com
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision
References: <F66469FCE9C5D311B8FF0000F8FE9E0701178FA9@mbtlipnt03.btlabs.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mat,

Exactly. A movable boundary (and its consequence, asking registries to make
judgement calls) is a proven enemy of route aggregation, renumbering,
and multi-homing. The lack of IPv4 addresses forced us into this situation,
as per RFC 2050. As Matt Crawford's calculation proves, there is nothing
forcing us into such a situation with IPv6. It's simple arithmetic.
Just allocate /48s. 

   Brian

matthew.ford@bt.com wrote:
> 
> If /56 can be agreed upon as a default then that is not too bad IMO.
> However, the RIRs seem to be veering towards allowing LIRs to allocate
> whatever they choose between /48 and /64 - a movable boundary which will
> scupper the technical objectives of multihoming and simplified
> site-renumbering. I believe the idea of a movable boundary should be
> strongly opposed for this reason.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mat Ford.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Dupont [mailto:Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr]
> Sent: 07 July 2000 08:22
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: stephenb@uk.uu.net; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com;
> ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp; sig-ipv6@apnic.net;
> mir@ripe.net; joao@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document
> Revision
> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything
>    longer than a /48 in the first place?
> 
> => many ISPs want to allocate /64 (or worse) to their customers... and
> shout a /48 per customer is far too large. I believe this is a consequence
> of the slow^N start, ie. the /35 rule (RIRs trim address space of ISPs,
> ISPs take back the burden to their customers).
>  The idea is to introduce a small site (/56) for "poor & little" customers
> and to make it the *default* allocation. IMHO this is an acceptable target.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------


*              sig-ipv6:  APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues           *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net *