Hi Sander,
In this context, we are talking about allocations for the provider's infrastructure. This is what is there on the link that you provided To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an LIR must have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years. LIRs that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32 up to /29 without needing to supply any additional information. LIRs may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the LIR infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the LIR, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation. Please check further inline below. -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> Sent: 12 March 2020 18:26 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com> Cc: Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <pcama...@cisco.com>; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi, > So what is it that you and Andrew see in the net-pgm draft or the SRv6 > proposal that lead you to believe such a change in the IPv6 assignment or > allocation sizes are required by RIRs? Well, your example mentions that a /40 is used for SRv6 in a very large setup. A regular business entity has a /48 and a regular ISP will have a /29 available. [KT] The example of /40 is for a large SP across their network infrastructure – not a single POP. I think it is necessary to look at what an expected address space requirements for SRv6 will be for such entities, and whether that fits and leaves enough remaining address space for the rest of the network. [KT] Sure and I would expect such discussions to happen at NOGs or in other operational forums including within the IETF. What is also necessary is to see if the way SRv6 uses addresses is compatible with the RIR policies. In the RIPE NCC region we have https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assignment_infra, which basically allows for a separate /48 per PoP and a single /48 for in-house operation of the operator. If changes are required in RIR policies their communities need to be told so, and mutual expectations of what will and will not be considered acceptable address space use will have to be discussed. [KT] I believe so and we should get the feedback and inputs of operators that have deployed or deploying it. AFAIK none of them have raised such a concern or any issue with the RIR policies. > I am assuming this is the same "IP Space burn" topic that Andrew alludes to … Yes [KT] Thanks for confirming. So this is then a discussion on how providers want to manage their address space and allocations within it for SRv6. Nothing prevents such a discussion from continuing. I just don’t see how this as being related to the progression of the net-pgm draft towards publication. Thanks, Ketan Sander
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
