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

On 7/19/11 4:23 PM, Andrea Cima wrote:
>> 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.

Andrea, hi

Thnx for the data. This one is interesting, but still not sure what it 
says to us.

<Presumption>
 From my understanding, I would say that those who are really big and 
got /32 initial alloc goes and make an effort to trade-in /32 and 
"fight" for something big. It's a matter of "is it worth the effort?" 
decision - and get something larger than /29

Is it worth the effort for /31 or /30? Or they rather call the wizards 
to fit their networking plans into /32 and use HD ratio later?
</Presumption>

My question is, do we fix some/any of this guys with /29 min. alloc.?

>
>> 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.

So, you look into IPv4 data to determine the size of LIR?

Thnx for info, very usefull.

Cheers, Jan Zorz