Can you explain the logic/choice behind the choice of 50% allocation rate (32768 / 65536) for a /48?
Also does this not go against the underlying HD ratio for an IPv6 allocation of this size ? By my (possibly bad) math should this not be 33689 /64s ? or align to the the equivalent of 184 /56s as per the current IPv6 address policy ?
Whilst I agree with the intent that the recipient of the PA address space should not act as an LIR/ISP I don't see that the wording of this specific point is commercially viable in that context. What about in the case of Joint Ventures, or foreign owned entities ? Where there is likely to be a commercial relationship between two organisations, however possibly no direct parent-child hierarchy ?
David,
I have in principal support for this proposal, I think it is a good policy for all the points you outline. However I would like some clarification on the two points below.
- 4 D. The minimum IPv6 portable assignment to any organization is to be
- an address block of /48. A portable assignment of a block larger
- than a /48 can be made if it can be demonstrated that more than
- 32,768 /64 subnets (or equivalent) are required within its network
- or if numbering is required for 2 or more of the organization's
- sites operating distinct and unconnected networks.
Can you explain the logic/choice behind the choice of 50% allocation rate (32768 / 65536) for a /48?
Also does this not go against the underlying HD ratio for an IPv6 allocation of this size ? By my (possibly bad) math should this not be 33689 /64s ? or align to the the equivalent of 184 /56s as per the current IPv6 address policy ?
- 4 F. An organization must only use portable assignments made under
- this policy to address its own networks. An organization must
- not use portable assignments to address the networks or sites of
- other organizations.
Whilst I agree with the intent that the recipient of the PA address space should not act as an LIR/ISP I don't see that the wording of this specific point is commercially viable in that context. What about in the case of Joint Ventures, or foreign owned entities ? Where there is likely to be a commercial relationship between two organisations, however possibly no direct parent-child hierarchy ? The reality is that if the 'other organisation' gets a /48 form the owner of the PA, or receives a unique allocation from APNIC or another RIR the effect on the routing table will remain the same.
Cheers
--
Stephan Millet
Networking Guy at large.
* 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