Subject: IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:47:30 +0100

All,

	From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the
*minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to
proceed.  However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today
would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the
subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other
providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!!

	I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer
as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE
meeting.

	Now, if the /48 allocation is the way to proceed, I feel that all
initial /35 allocations should be initially changed to /29 as the first
step.  This can be done easily as all allocations have the /29 reserved to
ensure a contiguous block.  However a /29 allows for 524,288 /48, again if
the whole subTLA is used.  So at the same time the 80% utilisation section
of the document needs to be worded correctly to allow ISPs to apply for
subsequent subTLA's.

	Also I would like to ask the following question:

	How do we move from the current allocations of /29 & /35 to RFC2374
(IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format) and at what stage will
this happen?
	Otherwise I can see organisations holding multiple subTLA before
moving to the address structure in RFC2374, and more renumbering pain.
	Regards,
	Stuart

Stuart Prevost
---------------------------------------------------
IP Specialist, Futures Testbed
Tel:	+44 1473 646891
Fax:	+44 1473 643906
Mobile:	+44 7801 977290
Email:	[email-masked]
Addr:	B29/136 - Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich. Suffolk. IP5 3RE

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:33:43 +0200

Hi,

> as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE

Exactly this was the reason from our side for welcoming the /48, /56, /64
suggestion: having more "elbow space" in the /35 allocated to us, being
able to do reasobale NLA structuring (to our resellers, and to *their*
resellers).

regards,

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet GmbH               Mail: [email-masked]
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:14:11 -0500

Now we're getting to the point I think.

We are messing around doing slow start and sub-allocations
inside sub-TLAs, ignoring that fact that all the sub-TLAs
together only eat up one TLA, and we have thousands of TLAs
available. There is no need to impose these artificial
constraints on the ISPs.

  Brian