Hi, > On 12 May 2015, at 14:18, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Mathew Newton > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Hi again, Matthew, and thanks for answering. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jan Ingvoldstad > > Sent: 12 May 2015 12:33 > > > How do you manage your IPv4 space, then? > > Not wishing to sound flippant, but the answer to that really is 'with some > difficulty'. This is despite being in the fortunate position of holding a /8 > IPv4 allocation (amongst other, smaller, ranges) in addition to widespread > usage of (overlapping) RFC1918 address space. > > > Do you actually have routing that needs more than 8 total IPv4 spaces? > > I cannot answer that directly because it is, in my view, a false dichotomy as > it is far more complicated a situation than that. > > What it does give you, is the opportunity to create 2048 times the amount of > routes you could in your current IPv4 /8, without worrying about the things > you could do in your internal networks with the remaining part of the /64. > > Besides which, migration to IPv6 would be a wasted opportunity if it was > rolled out and configured in exactly the same way as IPv4 given all the > existing problems and constraints that would continue to persist. > > Oh, I agree with that. Over here, we actively abuse the system by randomly > generating /80 addresses for internal use, and reusing those in ways that > apparently never were intended by those who designed the IPv6 address > specification. > > What I do think is a problem, though, is that IPv6 address space is > considered so plentiful that we're repeating the mistakes of when we thought > the IPv4 address space was plentiful. > > I don't see a big problem with RIPE NCC evaluating requests for allocations > up to e.g. /24 in some very rare cases. > > However, these things have a way of sliding down a slippery slope, and the > IPv6 address space is most likely what we're going to be stuck with for our > systems' lifetimes. The prospective system lifetimes are long, perhaps on the > order of hundreds of years. > > And that's actually something we need to keep in mind when setting policy > today.
We’re to date only allocating from 1/8th of the overall IPv6 address space. There’s 7/8ths remaining in which policy can be changed, if required. And I would put a bet on IPv6 not being the mainstream global / interplanetary communication protocol in hundreds of years, but I won’t be around to collect, so…. On the /64 boundary, I’d point you at RFC7421. Tim
