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

On 10/21/11 2:02 PM, boggits wrote:
> On 21 October 2011 12:42, Gert Doering<gert at space.net>  wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure how you're proposing to modify this?  "Special case
>> for 6rd only"?
>
> Send a guidance note...
>
> "Dear IPRAs,
>
> The AP-WG believe that 6RD as discussed in RFC5969 is a valid reason
> to request more than a /32 in order to give end user networks a
> sensible level of address space but please make sure that requests
> above a /29 have followed the correct mathematical calculations.
>
> Love
> The AP-WG"
>
> ... this doesn't require a change to the policy (correct me if I'm
> wrong) and stops people just requesting a /29 without a challenge.

Hi,

We went through long discussion regarding this and this also needs a 
change of a policy, making one particular technology special.

The common voice from community was "please, don't make 6rd special, 
because we don't know what follows".

And, /29 is not a considerable waste of space, specially if we know that 
legacy IPv6 initial allocations were done with /29 reservation, so that 
place is there and will not be used by anyone else other than LIR, that 
got /32 from the beginning of this reservation.

Why not making IPv6 more easily deployable, without those restrictions 
from IPv4 and legacy thinking about maximum conservation?

Cheers, Jan