Hi Gert, See below, in-line.
Regards, Jordi > De: Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:28:13 +0200 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: I-D > ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt > > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:31:31AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> One open question is if this change will impact in the default allocation of >> /32 to the LIRs. I mean, should they still keep considering that the >> customers will be able to request a /48 and consequently keep allocating the >> big prefixes that we have seen until now ? If not, should the big prefixes >> already allocated be claimed back ? Yes, I know is a RIR business, but I >> think otherwise we clarify it ASAP, it can create a lot of unfairness in the >> process with future allocations. > > /32s are *not* "big prefixes". No, I was not referring to /32, but to the big allocations, such as /1x or /2x, for example. > > What are you aiming for? > > Reduce the ISP minimum allocation size - for what good? What I'm trying to say is that if we change the policy, and those that now can get, for example a /24 and with the new policy will only get a /28, have the same right to still get the /24, unless those that got the /24 (now) get it reduced to /28. Just an example, hopefully is now more clear. Otherwise, we are behaving in a very unfair way. Note that I don't want that this happens, I'm just explaining my view point about how unfair the situation will be. > > If all the IPv6 space is handed out as /32s, we have 4 billion routes - which > is very bad. Anything aiming for even smaller blocks (longer prefix) is > going the wrong way - brings some benefit to conservation but hurts routing. Totally agree, I guess I was not clear, hopefully now is much better ! > >> Moreover, it will be a good suggestion for ISPs to block the remaining /56 >> up to the /48 for each customer, in case he ask for it, in order to avoid >> renumbering ? If that's the case, there is any meaning for this change >> towards the conservation ?. > > This suggestion is not useful. If you reserve the rest of the /48, then > you can hand out the /48 in the first place, and be done with it. That's was my point ;-) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 > ************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
