AW: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 08:29:14AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
> As has been pointed out by others, why bother accepting the minimum 
> when you can simply (and honestly) claim 6RD?

Because it's big enough?

Speaking as the LIR contact for a smallish ISP - we received a /32 
from RIPE, and we expect this to be sufficient to number all our customers
(and all their friends) from it.  We're a hosting and business ISP these
days, and we just don't have 100.000+ customers to worry about.

There would not be any benefit in a larger allocation (except when trying
to win ****-size boasting), but it would most likely move us to a larger
billing category at RIPE.  Which is not a huge amount of money, if there
were a benefit to it - but if all the reason is "because we like numbers!",
my management would not be happy with me.

So - permit the question: why should a LIR bother explaining their 6rd
deployment plans (and I'm sure that the IPRAs would ask some questions)
*and* pay more, just to get a bit larger huge amount of numbers...?

Gert Doering
        -- LIR contact
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  144438

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279