Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > > > In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
> > > > it
> > > > possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it
> > > > may
> > > > seem.
> > >
> > > Except, if you are given bare minimums, and you are assigning out to
> > > subtending ISPs bare minimums, those subtending ISPs will end up with
> > > multiple networks. Some of them are BGP speakers. I can't use sparse
> > > allocation because I was given minimum space and not the HD-Ratio
> > > threshold space.
> >
> > Wait... If you are issuing space to ISPs that are multihomed, they should be getting their own addresses. Even if 
> > they aren't multihomed, they should probably be getting their own addresses. Why would you be supplying them with 
> > address space if they are an ISP?
> >
> > -Randy
>
> to my knowledge, RIPE still does not issue ipv6 PI space.
> so giving them their own space, is "problematic" to say the least.
RIPE issues PI space in a couple of different forms...

1.      Sponsoring LIR can pay 50 Euros/year and subsequently
        bill the recipient whatever they choose for the PI space.

2.      RIPE has always issued PI space to LIRs (ISPs are by
        definition LIRs).

3.      This is NANOG. NA != EU.

Owen