| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Gert Doering <gert@space.net> writes: > Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce > a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than > giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a > way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32. Why? If it there was a significat effect of costs on prefix announcement, we wouldn't see the huge number of (pseudo-) PI prefixes in today's table. I don't see a technical difference between announcement of an IPv4 PI /24 and an IPv6 /32 which would imply a significant difference in costs. Thus you will get an upstream for your v6 /32 as easily as now do for your v4 /24. The proposal poses the interesting question of other conditions to becoming LIR apart from costs. Currently RIPE requires a minimum of imediately assigned address space. What if anyone wants to become LIR for IPv6 only? Was this discussed? > Adding a rule like "you get a /32 only if you're multihomed" will make > things worse, because "they" will then get a /32 *and* an AS number. Most of those who went to the trouble of becoming a LIR, be it only for the reason of getting "PI" space for IPv6, will surely get their own AS number too. Thus for size consideration you should assume one AS per prefix. BTW, don't get me wrong - I like this proposal much better than the current draft which IMHO is biased far too much towards conservation of address space and poses too high requirements to receive an allocation. Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: What was said about larger allocation sizes than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for which a /32 does not provide sufficient space for reasonable aggregation? Robert - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
