[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Ok. My *personal* view, today, with the information I've at hand, is that
/48 will be enough for 99.99% of the sites. I don't want to say forever, as
you never know, but for sure for long time in terms of tens of years
probably.

That's why I'm convinced that /48 as a starting point for this makes sense
(in terms of *SIZE*, a different history is what may happens with routing
filters/practices). But I prefer to see a policy that allows, with the
corresponding justification to AfriNIC, this size to be extended if required
(for example the requester end-user-organization has more than one site).

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:43:19 +0100
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
> Proposal:IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:12 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>> Hi Leo,
>> 
>> Well, I see your point, but somehow disagree ...
> 
> I'm not sure I was making a point. I was trying to ask a question.
> 
>> I think with the deployment of IPv6 we will see different ways of
>> using
>> subnets. Basically, many more subnets in each end-site, compared to
>> what we
>> typically see in IPv4.
>> 
>> We don't expect that all the possible interfaces provided by the 64
>> bits of
>> each subnet are going to be use in each subnet, and was never the
>> intend
>> with the design of IPv6, because that allows autoconfiguration,
>> privacy
>> addresses, CGAs, and many more things for sure to come.
>> 
>> I know about new technologies being developed that in fact use, in a
>> residential customer, hundreds of subnets. Probably /48 seems to
>> much, but
>> for example, /56 (256 subnets) is too low for those cases. I'm sure
>> that in
>> case of corporate customers the number of subnets will be closer
>> to /48 than
>> in the case of a residential customer, as typically business have a
>> higher
>> demand for addresses.
> 
> I understand that the need for conservation is less powerful with
> IPv6 than IPv4. Nonetheless, the need for careful stewardship of the
> number space remains. I don't yet have a clear idea of what
> proportion of networks receiving a /48 prefix would ever need to
> expand their assignment from a /48 to a /47 - or a shorter prefix.
> I'm not even sure which end of the spectrum people think is likely,
> hence my question.
> 
> I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this topic.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Leo Vegoda
> IANA Numbers Liaison
> 
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.