[address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:01:32PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > > I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the
> > > RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20
> > > years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need
> > > around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something
> > > that does not end in IR at all?
> > 
> > Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this.
> 
> Sorry, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were proposing to assign a /8
> to the RIR directly from start on. I actually like the idea of making the
> assignments for the current RIRs far apart from each other allowing their
> block to grow or to assign the space in between to other organizations
> should it move in this direction.

OK, so we are actually agreeing here :-) - I like the proposal as it is
(with a /12 for a start).  

The /8 came up because that would be something I'd like *more* - but I 
am aware that there is no consensus for that, so the whole discussion
is sort of moot.

[..]
> So if the ripe can show a need for a /12 in the next 3 years give them one.
> If they can not, make it a /16 or a /20 or whatever the ripe will need. Same
> goes for the other RIRs.

Having *plenty* of space at the RIR level is useful, because it means
"the RIR can leave lots of spare space between LIR allocations", so LIRs
can grow without needing to get a new address block.

There is no benefit in reducing a RIR to a /16 or /20 - there are really
enough /12s out there (even if you assume 150 NIRs plus a PIR).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  65398  (60210)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299