Hi, Leo, Thanks for the comments. Replies are inline. 于 2012/2/1 10:46, Leo Vegoda 写道: On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:32 pm, Andy Linton wrote: […]2. Summary of the current problem --------------------------------- The current IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy (apnic-089-v010) states that 5.2.3 Larger initial allocations Initial allocations larger than /32 may be justified if: a. The organization provides comprehensive documentation of planned IPv6 infrastructure which would require a larger allocation; or b. The organization provides comprehensive documentation of all of the following: o its existing IPv4 infrastructure and customer base, o its intention to provide its existing IPv4 services via IPv6, and o its intention to move some of its existing IPv4 customers to IPv6 within two years. In either case, an allocation will be made which fulfills the calculated address requirement, in accordance with the HD-Ratio based utilization policy. Large networks are facing challenges deploying IPv6 networks. The current slow start policy is to allocate a /32 and then reduce the bit mask one bit at a time on subsequent allocations (i.e. /31, /30, /29 etc.).It would be helpful if the authors of the proposal could expand on this explanation of the issue being solved. I do not understand why the slow start policy is relevant to large scale IPv6 deployments on existing IPv4 networks. I would have expected that in most cases APNIC, or the relevant NIR, would already have information about the network on which IPv6 is being deployed and would just need details of the new addressing plan, as per 5.2.3.b. Why is slow start an issue here? What have I misunderstood? The "slow start policy"
itself is not an issue. The issue is that the reserved IPv6
address pool is only considered for TWO years. If we can expend
the time window to five years or even ten years, there should be
no problem for the slow start policy. This approach is designed to maximise global routing aggregation, however, it causes fragmentation and complexity in the internal routing configuration of very large networks. This is particularly a problem in large networks with many POPs growing at different rates. Also, the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (Section 5.2.3 Larger initial allocations) does not take into account long-term future growth.What is the scale of mismatch between large scale IPv6 deployments on existing IPv4 networks and anticipated "long-term future growth"? What is "long-term" here? 3.7 already says that LIRs should not have "to go back to RIRs for additional space too frequently", so plans for relatively short periods, like four or five years shouldn't be a problem. I am obviously missing something. What is it? See above reasons. The long term means 5 to 10 years. Our figure is that a /18 (or even bigger) IPv6 address pool should be reserved for some big ISPs in the APNIC region. Regards, Thanks, Leo Vegoda * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
|