headers
Iljitsch van Beijnum | 21 Jul 2006 18:20
Favicon

Re: Global IPv6 policy question

On 21-jul-2006, at 17:42, Kevin Loch wrote:

> /12 seems to be rather large given the unlikely possibility of
> a /13 assignment being made any time soon.  The largest
> assignments being made so far have been /19, and only
> two ever.

> A year's supply of the largest expected assignment size would
> be a good target.  /16 should be more than enough.

/12 makes for 512 blocks under 2000::/3 so it doesn't seem too  
excessive, even if a bit longer would also be sufficient.

But remember that they were talking about doing /6 or thereabouts so  
maybe we should count our blessings.  :-)

Iljitsch
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tim Chown | 24 Jul 2006 16:13
Picon
Favicon

Re: Global IPv6 policy question

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:20:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 21-jul-2006, at 17:42, Kevin Loch wrote:
> 
> >/12 seems to be rather large given the unlikely possibility of
> >a /13 assignment being made any time soon.  The largest
> >assignments being made so far have been /19, and only
> >two ever.
> 
> >A year's supply of the largest expected assignment size would
> >be a good target.  /16 should be more than enough.
> 
> /12 makes for 512 blocks under 2000::/3 so it doesn't seem too  
> excessive, even if a bit longer would also be sufficient.
> 
> But remember that they were talking about doing /6 or thereabouts so  
> maybe we should count our blessings.  :-)

I guess one other question is whether there is any value in reserving
larger chunks of sequential space for each RIR, whatever is actually
allocated now, should any regional aggregation have any value in the 
future?   i.e. whether to think about where the /16's come from.

--

-- 
Tim/::1
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Geoff Huston | 24 Jul 2006 23:24
Favicon

Re: Global IPv6 policy question

At 12:13 AM 25/07/2006, Tim Chown wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:20:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On 21-jul-2006, at 17:42, Kevin Loch wrote:
> >
> > >/12 seems to be rather large given the unlikely possibility of
> > >a /13 assignment being made any time soon.  The largest
> > >assignments being made so far have been /19, and only
> > >two ever.
> >
> > >A year's supply of the largest expected assignment size would
> > >be a good target.  /16 should be more than enough.
> >
> > /12 makes for 512 blocks under 2000::/3 so it doesn't seem too
> > excessive, even if a bit longer would also be sufficient.

Some folk on this list may be regular attendees of the open address 
policy meetings hosted by the Regional Internet Registries, and for 
these folk this topic will all sound very familiar, no doubt. In 
formulating this address policy proposal within these forums, this 
topic was considered in some detail. Rather than rehash all the 
material here (for which some of you may be grateful to be spared the 
agony of such a rerun!) those who are interested may find it useful 
to trawl back through the sessions of past RIR meetings where this 
topic has been considered.  In this context, I presented some work 
looking at simulations of registry activity in a V6 registry and 
looked at the impact of various policies in terms of the ability of 
the registry to support coherent (non-fragmented) allocation windows 
for ISPs and LIRs across the full sequence of initial and subsequent 
(window expansion) allocations. An unpublished draft on this topic 
can be found at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Conrad | 24 Jul 2006 23:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Global IPv6 policy question

Hi Geoff,

On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> In any case I would urge those who are interested in this topic,  
> who have not already done so, to spend some time looking back at  
> the previous discussions of this policy proposal in the online  
> archives of the open address policy sessions.

Could you provide pointers to those archives?

Thanks,
-drc
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iljitsch van Beijnum | 24 Jul 2006 18:22
Favicon

Re: Global IPv6 policy question

On 24-jul-2006, at 16:13, Tim Chown wrote:

> I guess one other question is whether there is any value in reserving
> larger chunks of sequential space for each RIR, whatever is actually
> allocated now, should any regional aggregation have any value in the
> future?   i.e. whether to think about where the /16's come from.

Currently IPv6 space is given out at these rates (in /32s):

mysql> select left(day, 4) as year, rir, sum(pow(2, 32-num)) as  
thirtytwos from addrspace where type='ipv6' and num <= 32 and rir =  
'ripencc' group by year, rir;
+------+---------+------------+
| year | rir     | thirtytwos |
+------+---------+------------+
| 2002 | ripencc |         73 |
| 2003 | ripencc |        173 |
| 2004 | ripencc |       7088 |
| 2005 | ripencc |      17504 |
| 2006 | ripencc |       6709 |
+------+---------+------------+

+------+-------+------------+
| year | rir   | thirtytwos |
+------+-------+------------+
| 2002 | apnic |         31 |
| 2003 | apnic |         39 |
| 2004 | apnic |       6211 |
| 2005 | apnic |       9378 |
| 2006 | apnic |       2175 |
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane