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

On 7/20/11 12:37 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote:
> For me that sounds like this is curing symptoms snstead of the real
> cause. I would suggest to add a clause that a) NCC can hand out new
> allocations if the addressing plan for the new addresses is sound and
> b) that simplifying administrational causes  should also be an valid
> reason for address need (such as wastful transition mechanisms like 6rd
> or assigning /36 per pop eventhough not all pops have more then 2048 /48 to
> be assigned but for the sake of a clear network design).

With rising smallest initial alloc /29 we do not "cure" this problem, we 
just make it a bit smaller :)

But let's discuss that when we publish the policy change proposal.

>
> We do have enough addresses and we will not get short on them any time if we
> don't to something incredibly stupid So lets not create artifical obstacles.
> IPv6 is designed to allow that. Don't give that benefit away by some
> IPv4-we-don't-have-enough-addresses-and-must-save-addresses-at-all-costs
> habbits. In IPv6 thats just not necessary anymore, there are enough
> addresses and making things complicated in order to save addresses is
> just not reasonable!

talking to convinced.

/jan