6bone Routing [was RIPng & tunnels]

[Geert Jan de Groot]

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 08:47:13 -0700  Bob Hinden wrote:
> >This sounds good to me.  One issue I just found though which is logistical
> >is that I know of two customers that will ask very soon for REAL IPv6
> >addresses and begin to deploy them.  They will join the 6bone and use 1897
> >but clearly this will be a pain and they don't want to have to IPv6
> >address AS's.
> 
> Yes, this would be good.  I think we need to get all of the registries
> involved.  The work Geert Jan is doing at RIPE is a great first step.

Maybe I should elaborate on my previous message.
I apologise that it's a little bit offtopic for the 6bone list,
but since the topic was brought up here, I hope this is useful.

It seems we're having different ideas on the usability of RFC1897 
addresses and the need to renumber.

As far as the registry work is concerned, we're  getting close to be able
to assign address space.  Software to register IPv6 address space is
currently experimental but initial tests work. This software is used
by the RIPE NCC, and similar code is used by APNIC; 
the Internic uses a totally different package.

A few things are missing. One is assignment guidelines; should we always
assign /64 prefiexes, and to whom? Should each department of a company
obtain its own prefix, or should they work this out internally.
Keep in mind that IMHO the IPv4 'scarcity' isn't caused by amount of
machines, but assignment efficiency; the whole Internet still fits 
in less than one A.

Another thing, and I'm really speaking outside my own department here,
is the way address space is assigned. For IPv4, the RIPE NCC only
accepts requests from contributing registries (we don't get NSF funding).
How this applies to IPv6 space, I don't know; if you want me to bring this
up internally, tell me privately. 

Personally I expected the issue of non-1897 IPv6 addresses to be 
one year away at this time.

But what I'm really concerned with is the push Jim showed to get 
'real' addresses, I assume because he didn't want his customers
to renumber.
That really scares me. One of the big plusses for IPv6 is that
renumbering is supposed to be easy. Aren't we sending out the wrong
message if for initial deployment, we publically push for
'final' IPv6 assignments? 
Don't get me wrong: I think that having first customers using 
this 'for real' is quite a result, but I'm concerned about 
the precedent it sets and the message it sends out.

That's why I'm not very enthousiastic about non-1897 addresses.
If I'm dead wrong, enlighten me.

Geert Jan