Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space

Hello Scott,

> Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64:
> A /64 seems small 
> So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate?

I believe it was discussed during the RIPE meeting that
not more than a /127 was needed to connect two peers at 
an exchange point.  

-Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6wg at arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg at arin.net]On Behalf Of J.
> Scott Marcus
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:10 PM
> To: Richard Jimmerson; David R Huberman
> Cc: v6wg at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space
> 
> 
> At 12:57 05/09/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> > 
> >> The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange 
> >> points that applies to IPv4.  This policy can be found under 
> >> the heading "Micro-allocations" at
> >> http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html
> >> 
> >> Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6?
> >
> >Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to 
> include IPv6
> >registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the
> >micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN 
> directly. There
> >should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both
> >ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to 
> determine an
> >appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64:
> 
> >There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange 
> >Point.  It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group 
> >of inter-connected Exchange Points.  The RIPE NCC has recently
> >proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for
> >Exchange Points using these guidelines.
> 
> 
> A /64 seems small -- recall that the IETF draft on IPv6 
> allocations (not
> currently adopted as ARIN policy) says:
> 
> "-Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
>   always-on connections should received (sic) a /48.
> - Small and large enterprises should received (sic) a /48...
> 
> - Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting
>   should received a /64.
> - Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should
>   received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple
>   devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a
>   MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6].
> - Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient
>   address should received a /128.
> 
> Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a 
> /48 if future
> growth is anticipated..."
> 
> So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate?
> 
> Cheers,
> - Scott