[address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list

Nick Hilliard wrote:
> So the "assignment-size:" really means maximum assignment size rather
> than exact assignment size?

There's certainly nothing stopping you from doing that - however it'll leave you with some explaining to do by the time you want your next block, because the smaller sub-assignments might not be reflected in HD ratios.

> 
> Yes, certainly if you're large enough, you would go for separate blocks for
> /48 and /56 anyway.  However, smaller operations may carve them from the
> same block for whatever reasons.
> 

As I said, database entries are relatively cheap - you can still use a single routable block and use multiple database entries to describe that single block, using separate entries for separate prefix sizes. If an operation is of such a size that they don't have enough customer volume in a single block size to be able to aggregate, they're probably down to using individual database entries for individual customers anyway. You could even use overlapping database entries, where the 'most specific' entry wins. This way you can define blocks of /56s in a block that would otherwise have /48s, for example.

Remco


This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited.  Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW.  Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.