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

Hallo,

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Adams <madams at netcologne.de> wrote:
>  2) Stick to policy for subsequent allocations. In our case this
> means additional unneccessary work. Anyway it ends in a /29 for us.

Isn't it better to change that procedure to not require unnecessary work?
The space is reserved for growth and to contain fragmentation. Instead
of increasing the initial allocation I propose to make it easier to
request subsequent allocations from the prior reserved /29. A short
notice "hey, we are growing" should be enough. If it's not, then we
need to change that. Handing out /29 initially might lead to
over-generous network planing, but one should not be having problems
getting the rest of one's /29 when growing!

But maybe I am just not getting your point?!

regards.
 danrl

--
Dan Luedtke
http://www.danrl.de