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

On 1/4/12 8:01 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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.

Nick, hi.

Yes, as you said. We have been through this discussion and there is no 
point in re-doing it again. Your suggestion is just inserting the 
pointless obstacle, making LIRs claim they will do 6rd even if they do 
not intend to do so - to get /29. We can go around in circles, but I'm 
not sure we need this :)

We thought to insert partially your idea with suggestion, that LIR 
should clarify just for documentation purposes, why they need more than 
/29, but at the end decided, that this is not adding anything, just 
making the policy longer.

>
> 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?

30 + 32 = 62 :)

Cheers, Jan