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

a bit off topic...

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:52 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>>>> 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...
>
> Somebody (or hopefully somebodies) forgot a smiley.

well, why?

I don't say /20 or /16 is the right size but we started with /35, then
to /32 and now to /29. Seems like we are pushing things every few
years.

So why not go bigger this time?
And we got the space to waste if people are afraid of that to, we're
still only on the first out of 7-8 big block (2000::/3...)



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no