[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded
> - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded

two issues here:

1.  I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in:

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/006577.html

specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29.

2.  if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other
transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd
end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its
allocation requirements?  I.e. will another allocation will be required for
traditional ipv6 assignments?

Nick