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

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:29:15AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> I'm conviced a /29 will be very helpful for proper addressing plans
> >> and I'm strongly supporting this proposal.
> > Isn't that almost the same that was said when we went from /35 to /32,
> > and now again when we go to /29?
> > Nothing wrong in that, the world keep growing so it's just fair the
> > address-space grow with it.
> 
> why are we screwing around?  let's go straight to a /16 or at least a
> /20.

So you're proposing to adjust the proposal for a minimum size of /20?

It's a tough fit inside RIPE's /12, but I always thought that was too
narrow-minded in the first place.  With a /20 per LIR, RIPE would need
a /7 now and a /6 soonish - which would be nicely utilizing the available
space inside FP001...

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