[address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"

On 15/11/2011 07:59, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
> I know I'm repeating myself, but probably we should try to "unlearn" all
> the speed-bumps we put into IPv4 addressing policy in order to slow down
> depletion and start distributing IPv6 space as needed, adapting the
> defaults to the feedback from operational environment and community.

I'm not particularly proposing slowing down depletion (there are still lots
of /29s in 2000::/3).  I'm proposing that if a service provider wants or
needs additional space above a /32 for 6rd (or any other transition
mechanism), that they state this explicitly in their application.  And if
they don't, they get a /32.  And if it turns out later that they need the
/29, the current allocation mechanism will allow them to expand easily
without address fragmentation.

> Then everybody can mention that they are about to deploy 6RD ;) We thought
> of this, but this just introduces unnecessary cycle in the process.

Yes, they could state that - but why bother?  /32 is way more address space
than most LIRs would ever use.

Putting a single line of text into an application form hardly strikes me as
being an excessive burden.  Additionally, it provides the RIPE NCC with
information on projected usage, which contributes to good stewardship.

Here's what it would require:

--
Foo ISP is requesting a /29 because it intends to deploy 6rd.
--

Are you genuinely saying that it's too much work to put this into an
application form?

Nick