[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

On 7/19/11 11:36 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> GV>  That would be perfect.. I was just reading the comments
> sequentially... and just assumed that when an ISP gets through the HD
> ratio stuff on his first /32, that he will gets the neighbor /32. In
> that case the ISP needs to make a new address plan policy, which would
> not be as clean as if he would have had a /31 to start off with. With
> the /29 there would be no issue at all on this matter.

I suspect many LIRs got their /32 just because they could get the 
allocation and in reality did not have a clue what they really need for 
deployment and are now stuck with HD ratio.

Question for RIPE-NCC staff: do we have any data or 
estimation/approximation, how many LIRs wanted additional alloc because 
of this reason and got it with trade? How many are asking for it? Would 
/29 cover majority of this "trades"?

Are there any clueless LIRs, that got /32, but today with presenting 
real data they would get more than /29?

We need some statistics here, if possible.

Cheers, Jan