[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Tue May 10 13:21:39 EDT 2005


In a message written on Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:55:31AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> i suspect that some folk may not understand all of the implications.
> heck, i probably don't.  but one would seem to be that it makes it
> even harder for the smaller folk and not too much harder for the larger.

I have wondered why we don't use a flat measurement as we already
do, simply relaxed to fit the additional v6 "free use of IP addresses".
I have yet to see a good argument that large ISP's have significantly
more waste.  Most of them are based on IPv4 notions, where if you
allocate a /20 to a POP to aggregate you have to justify all of the
/20.  In IPv6 you allocate it a /48 and that's that.  Remembering
that we're talking about allocated, and not in use, and from that
perspective it seems IPv6 should be more efficient than IPv4, based
on the current guidelines.

I don't know what the number should be, but I'm thinking 50-65%.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050510/2340b669/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list