[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:01:12PM +0100, boggits wrote:
> On 21 October 2011 11:44, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
> >    www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
> 
> Okay, I can see the logic, but please can we not do this :)
> 
> I'm all for allowing a policy that says LIR can request a /29 rather
> than a /32 and that deploying 6rd is a valid reason for allocating a
> /29 as an initial block but can we do this by having the LIR send the
> documentation in and having it reviewed for logic.

The feedback we got at the last RIPE meeting was "please do not tie this
to a specific transition technology, and go down the rathole of potentially
having to revoke the allocation if 6rd is no longer in use".

So the proposers have decided to go for the "minimum fuzz" thing - ask
for it, get it.

I'm not exactly sure how you're proposing to modify this?  "Special case
for 6rd only"?

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279