When you refer to needs... 'needs' can be more than the sheer number of single addresses. Even APNIC in their utilisation measures based on a percentage relating to /56's. 'Needs' could be network design and other considerations.
As of the 10th of February, the requirement to aggregate your first ipv6 block has been removed. So anyone with a v6/32 has de-aggregate if they like. The issue here is community standards may make you un-routable to anyone utilising the common bogon filters.
I've already seen this in the /35 we announce out of our /32 where the visibility in the US has been some 75% (not sure what measurement RIPE use to measure this) - but fluctuates.
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-
bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Terry Manderson
Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 4:49 PM
To: Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-083: Alternative criteria for
subsequentIPv6 allocations
On 03/02/2010, at 9:45 PM, Terence Zhang YH(CNNIC) wrote:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Not sure.. yet.
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
so,
tell the community about your situation.
In past it did, and the sub-optimal solution was announce de-aggregates
as well as the aggregate and hope that nearer entities listed to the
more specifics and forwarded appropriately.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
here lies the quandary, do we:
a) allow members with topologically separate networks to get
additional ipv6 prefixes for each site, probably providing far in
excess of what they need?
or
b) remove any language about aggregation (for which many network
filters' lives cling to) which, might I add, may not change the actual
route-ability/reach of the de-aggregates?
or both?
knowing in both cases the net addition to the IPv6 routing system will
be approximately the same (well "b" may be +1 for the aggregate) where
all else (such as traffic engineering) remain the same.
so which is seen as more attractive? conservation?, or aggregation?
I further find in interesting that such a topic, separate sites that
require separate prefixes and separate announcements from presumably
(but not always) separate ASNs, is not covered in either the v4 or v6
policies from what I could see.
How is this handled now by the secretariat? Networking plans? case by
case? ie "I have 5 sites across the asia pacific that are not, and
never will be, connected."
perhaps this points to an omission in prop-73 regarding initial
allocations.
thinking aloud:
Consider the ISP with POPs in 3 locations that has a different
upstream for each site. They have 2 x /24s and a single /21 IPv4
allocations advertised with different ASNs. Current policy would
probably provide them with a 'justification free' initial allocation of
a /32. However if they de-aggregate they might find that the more
specifics have no reach. And further the HD ratio would most likely
prevent them from getting an additional v6 allocation/assignment.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
nope.
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?
not sure yet.
Terry
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy