Hi all, Thank you for your work on this Jordi, and to you Nathalie for reaching out to the community to seek input and clarification. While I do not know the ins and outs of the technical side of IPv6, I care enough about its deployment worldwide and know enough about policy to understand that incongruent policy -- either in practice or on paper -- can often create a rather massive headache.
Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia Independent consultant & editor 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:33 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nathalie, > > If it helps, the survey (http://survey.consulintel.es/index.php/175122) > responses indicate right now (from 703 responses, about 200 from RIPE, > missing responses from Russia that has got very few), only 76 ISPs > providing /64, the rest is shared almost 50/50 among /48 and /56. > > I will try to get responses from Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Korea, > China and India, which I guess have some deployment and almost didn’t > responded at the time being. > > Then at the end of June, I will “clean” up duplicate responses (some times > several folks respond from the same ISP). > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: ipv6-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Nathalie Trenaman < > [email protected]> > Responder a: <[email protected]> > Fecha: lunes, 13 de junio de 2016, 4:53 > Para: <[email protected]> > Asunto: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC > > >Dear colleagues, > > > >As you might know, the current IPv6 policy states very clear that > assignments to customers must be a minimum of a /64. > > > >5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > > >End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The > size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, > using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End > Site). > > > >https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 > > > >On the other hand, a while ago, RFC7608 (BCP198) was published, stating: > > > >2. Recommendation > > IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in > > Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]. > > > > Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length > > of IPv6 prefixes by design. In particular, forwarding processes MUST > > be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by > > increments of 1. > > > >In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an > IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should > be a /64. > >I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if > alignment between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed. > > > > > >Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman > >IPv6 Program Manager > >RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > >
