Nick,
The draft does not require changes to address assignment policy.
SRv6 has been already deployed using IPv6 addresses already available to the
operator.
As an example for Softbank (all this is based on their public information that
they have reported):
They have a /20 IPv6 prefix available from ARIN. They have deployed SRv6 using
only one millionth! of their /20 prefix.
Cheers,
Pablo.
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>
Date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:56
To: Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org>, "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC -
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Andrew Alston wrote on 27/02/2020 10:35:
> 1. The burn of address space required to adequately deploy some of this
> (something that there was agreement on in Montreal that there would
> be analysis on – which was never done)
I'm a bit alarmed by the lack of engagement here between the authors of
this draft and the RIR community about addressing. This draft has the
capacity to require significant changes to address allocation /
assignment policy, but so far there's been no discussion about how this
might work within current or future RIR allocation / assignment
policies, or indeed upstream at IANA. Could the authors provide some
information on how they intend to approach this issue?
Nick
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
