new 6bone pTLA prefix length

[Bob Fink]

6bone Folk,

The review period for the new 6bone pTLA prefix and policy proposal is 
over. I sense no disagreement on changing the prefix length to /32, but 
various degrees of concern over the policy changes.

Thus I will start allocating from the 3FFE:4000::/32 thru 3FFE:7FFF::/32 
range immediately, but will not change any policy for the moment. I will no 
longer allocate pTLA's from the /28 range (I have closed out the /24 range 
previously).

I will present a summary of the discussions on the policy changes at the 
upcoming ngtrans meeting in Minneapolis. This will presumably bring more 
comment/discussion, and then I will come back to the list for closure and, 
possibly, a change of policy if appropriate.


Thanks,

Bob

===
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:47:25 -0800
>To: 6BONE List <6bone@isi.edu>
>From: Bob Fink <fink@es.net>
>Subject: new 6bone pTLA prefix proposal, comments by 4 March 2002 please
>
>6bone Folk,
>
>We are seeing a recent increase in pTLA requests, and it prompts me to 
>recommend a change in pTLA prefix length to allow for future growth. 
>Basically I propose changing from the /28 prefixes we now allocate to /32:
>
>===
>The current 6bone pTLA numbering plan is:
>
>   3FFE:0000::/24 thru 3FFE:3900::/24 are allocated [there are 58 /24 pTLA's]
>
>   3FFE:8000::/28 thru 3FFE:8340::/28 are allocated [there are 54 /28 pTLA's]
>
>I propose:
>
>   3FFE:0000::/24 thru 3FFE:3F00::/24  [no new allocations here]
>
>   3FFE:8000::/28 thru 3FFE:83F0::/28  [no new allocations here]
>
>   3FFE:4000::/32 thru 3FFE:7FFF::/32  [which provides for 16K /32 pTLA's]
>
>leaving:
>
>   3FFE:8400::/32 thru 3FFE:FFFF::/32  for future use
>
>===
>
>In addition, I would like you to consider some possible policy changes:
>
>1. requiring existing pTLA /24 and /28 holders to renumber to a new /32, 
>unless justifying why it is not possible due to usage and/or address 
>layout issues, within 6 months (12 months?) of the change in policy.
>
>2. encouraging pTLA holders to apply for a production subTLA allocation 
>when they move to a fully production mode; requiring those charging for 
>service to also apply for a production subTLA allocation; requiring the 
>pTLA to be released within 6 months (12 months?) of acquiring a subTLA 
>unless justifying why the pTLA allocation is still needed/required.
>
>3. pTLA holders should not assign pTLA based allocations to paying 
>customers except for early test/trial purposes.  paying customers should 
>always receive RIR based allocations when service is not for test/trial 
>purposes.
>
>4. requiring a restatement of pTLA usage and continuing need every 2 years.
>
>5. requiring the return of a pTLA when it is no longer used by the 
>original requesting entity. this is the de facto policy, but has not been 
>stated previously.
>
>
>Please send comments to the 6bone list by 4 March 2002.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bob