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

Dear Tom,

> I agree with this, and also with the general theme of the proposal of extending the initial allocation size. I do not feel that it is sensible to tie this into a specific transition mechanism so am happy with the more generic proposal that has been put together that will also allow better scalability in long term addressing plans.
> 
> One thing that I do wonder is whether the (limited) overhead of the NCC processing these requests mean it is more desirable to limit this "re-request" to a single shot per-LIR (which will likely push people to request the whole /29), or whether permitting multiple requests grabbing a /32 at a time (up to the /29) is desirable. Personally I assume that most networks using this policy extension would go for the /29 straight off, but then there maybe further interaction with the charging scheme which dissuades this.

Assuming that the central point of this proposal stays intact, no additional documentation required for expansion up to a /29, the overhead of evaluating and processing these requests for the RIPE NCC would be minimal. Allowing LIRs to request expansion a /32 at a time would not significantly impact our work load.

Best regards,

Alex Le Heux
Policy Implementation Co-ordinator
RIPE NCC