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

On 1/9/12 5:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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).

Nick, hi.

Ok, I hear what you are saying.

>
> 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.

I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them 
think - more resources, bigger LIR ;)

>
> - 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.

Let's see what others think - WG, any thoughts?

Cheers, Jan