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

Hi,


> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for
> discussion.
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>    www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 18 November 2011.


Short: I support it.

Long:

well, i'm one of those guys who prefer to implement native IPv6 from scratch
and skip all those crappy transition methods completely. It actually works
im my world.

...but unfortunately(?) my world is huge corporate networks and rather small scale ISPs,
haven't worked for a big ISPs for a decade now, so i guess there could be a case for 6rd somewhere else.

It's a little awkward that the proposal mentions "small ISPs", because with small ISPs
there shouldn't be a problem to implement native IPv6... 

Anyways, the reason why i do support the proposal is just getting the additional bits for proper subnetting,
that actually is a little PITA if you're a "not-big-yet-but-not-so-little-anymore"-type ISP.
Doing network design meant to last more than some years the right way is a little hard there with a /32 sometimes.
So i would welcome /29s instead of /32s. I cannot always justify more than an initial /32 at the moment.
If that also helps with 6RD deployments, and it certainly does, sure, good thing.

I don't see any downside of that since even for the earlier Allocations this was reserved already.
But we should be clear here: /29 should be the end of the road for "no documentation needed". 

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect