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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hi Jan,

Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
> 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? 

1 LIR has been able to justify an expansion of their initial /32 (back
in 2004).
15 LIRs gave back their initially requested /32 in exchange for a larger
allocation.

Furthermore 23 LIRs got a first allocation larger than /32.

> How many are asking for it? 

Just a handful.

> Would /29 cover majority of this "trades"?

Out of the 15 cases mentioned above only 1 would have fitted in a /29.
All the other allocation were much larger.

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

We can not see how many LIRs would now get a larger allocation as it
depends on data that we do not have (assignment size - /48 or /64?,
number of customers, growth etc). However when we receive a /32
allocation request, and it's clear that the LIR will need more than a
/32 based on the information they provide, we advise the LIR about the
fact that the requested amount may not be covering their current needs.


I hope this helps
Best regards

Andrea Cima
RIPE NCC


> We need some statistics here, if possible.
> 
> Cheers, Jan
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAk4lk0kACgkQXOgsmPkFrjPGXgCfdCviOSBkfjxWV/lFZYKpjDlf
R2QAoJLHylcsqAgKqNV7EVS/TwacKlI9
=Mu0L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----