Subject: RE: [bmwg] Proposal: IANA Consideration forhttp://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-popoviciu-bmwg-ipv6benchmarking-01.txt

From: "Gunter Van de Velde \(gvandeve\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:18:02 +0200

Dear WG,
 
Many thanks for the support in the below analysis. I will write a
summary text and include the below WG consensus for the /48 IANA request
in the revised IPv6 Benchmarking draft.
 
Kind Regards,
G/

________________________________

From: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Proposal: IANA Consideration
forhttp://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-popoviciu-bmwg-ipv6benchmarking-0
1.txt

Dear All,
 
One of the topics discussed at IETF65 was related to the IANA section
for this draft and some discussion is included in the BMWG proceedings.
There was a bias for obtaining a dedicated IPv6 range in similar fashion
as what is available for IPv4 benchmarking through rfc2544.
 
An open topic is the size of the range, so we tried to analyse the
pro's/con's of the different potential range allocations:
 
Prefix lenght:
 
a) /64 to /128
Makes no sence
 
b) /64 
'+'
Optimized allocation
'-'
More then 1 allocations are needed
can become complex
not trivial to use
 
c) /48
'+'
can be used in simple manner equal as the IPv4 range
is typical what a site will get allocated
 
'-'
Not very optimized allocation, but better then option (d)
Would not test for prefix lenght of 32 bits as seen in the routing table
can not fully reflect the prefix distribution one will see at ISP's
 
d) /32
'+'
Has also prefix lenght coverage for /32 prefixes from Internet
most flexible range
aligned with typical RIR allocations for ISP
Can reflect the prefix distribution one will see at ISP's
'-'
most waste-full wrt to address space
 
e) Larger
Does not make much sense
 
Conclusion:
------------------
Looking into the above list a reasonable compromise between flexibility
and address conservation would be a dedicated IANA /48 range for
benchmarking of IPv6.
It is sufficient for majority of potential users. It provides similar
flexibility as the allocated range for IPv4 and is still taking address
allocation conservation into account.
 
We would like to update this draft soon and get a consensus included for
the IANA considerations
 
Brgds,
G/
 
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg