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

On 04/01/2012 23:58, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
> 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.

Hi Jan,

maybe we need to disagree.  I don't support the proposal as-is, but would
support the proposal if it were to include minimal justification for /29
(based on the current default of /32).

To recap, the reason I hold this view is:

- it is a minimal change which requires virtually no overhead by the LIR,
but will get them to think about whether they really need the space or not.

- many LIRs will never need to use 6rd or any other transition technology,
so assigning an extra 3 bits of address space is wasteful

- For the sort of LIR which doesn't require a transition technology like
this, /32 is probably a lot more than the LIR will ever need anyway.

- RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a duty of good stewardship to the resources
which they maintain.  Increasing the amount of space allocated to LIRS by a
factor of 8 without any justification whatever is (imo) bad stewardship of
resources.

Nick