[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 17:19, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> wrote:

> Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush
> period.

If everyone has easy access to a /29, there is no goldrush.


> The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small
> LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this!

If they really _need_ 3 * /29, they will justify it and get them. If
they don't need it, the relative waste is minimal. Merging LIRs are
not that common and it's not as if everyone would get the exhaustion
equivalent of a /8.


> As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and
> some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing
> the rules.

The 'r' in 6rd means "rapid".

I agree with Jan, let's not go in circles.


Richard