Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purpose
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-087-v001: IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki <fujisaki at syce dot net>
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 26 July 2010
>
> 2. Summary of the current problem
> ----------------------------------
>
> Current IPv6 address allocation policy is basically based on number of
> subscribers the applicant will have [1], but this does not allow
> sufficient allocation size to adequately deploy some IPv6
> protocols. For example, the "6rd" protocol needs more than /32 to
> implement adequately in an ISP network due to technical reasons
> [2].
Reference [2] does not say that 6rd needs more than a /32 for
implementation.
It says that it needs more than a /32 should the ISP want to encode the
entire IPv4 address the customer uses.
How many ISPs use the entire IPv4 address space for their customer
public address space?
I think the answer is none. ;-)
So using 6rd as a justification for getting more than a /32 seems rather
surprising to me.
Perhaps the proposal would benefit from an explanation as to why
(technically and operationally) the entire IPv4 address needs to be
encoded, rather than, say the final 16 bits which would still give the
end user an entire /48 to play with. Even an ISP who uses an IPv4 /8 for
customer facing addresses can still give each customer a /56. And even
if they had an IPv4 /8, they could in theory use that to justify /24
worth of IPv6 address space - which would then let them encode the
entire IPv4 address for 6rd to give each customer a /56 - or the final
24 bits to give the customer a /48. Etc.
philip
--