Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: prop-033-v001 "End site assign
> Geoff Huston wrote:
>> At 07:08 PM 25/09/2006, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>> Hi, I received some questions from our LIRs about this proposal and
>>> thought I'd share them on this list as well.
>>>
>>> + Should the initial allocation criteria be changed with this policy to
>>> 200 customers, instead of /48s?
>>>
>>> $B!!(B"have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
>>> organizations within two years."
>>
>> This could be a logically consistent change, in that it appears that the
>> intent of the Ipv6 allocation policy is to allow IPv6 resource
>> allocations to be available to service providers with customers.
Thanks. Yes, it seems to me that /48 has lost its original context now
that ISPs can assign any size to its customers.
>>> + What would be the minimum registration requirements per endsite?
>>> A suggestion JPNIC has is to allow all dynamic assignments and /64s to
>>> be aggregated as LIR's infrastructure, but require all other
>>> assignments per endsite, to be consistent with v4.
>> Would there be any particular motivation to deviate from a practice that
>> is consistent with Ipv4? (I can't think of any at this stage.)
>
> The reason I can think of is the overall size of the IPv6 space. If people
> starts registering /64s and smaller assignments to the NIR/RIR, our disk storage
> will fill up rather quickly and the utilization calculation will take longer.
> I'm not saying this can't be done.
>
> Considering that the registration requirement primary reason is to measure
> utilization, how about aggregating the assignment report to whatever size the HD
> ratio calculation is based on? And can we confirm that it is now based on /56?
>
I understand the registration requirement as for clarifying who is in
responsible of the address space as well as for calculating utilization.
Assuming this is the case, wouldn't it blur who is responsible for the
address space if we allow aggregation in /56?
Izumi