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

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Michael Adams wrote:
> >> - 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.
> 
> We don't intend to use 6RD but we would like to extend our allocation to /29
> in order to configure proper v6 address-pools on our access-routers. For us
> the proposal will resolve a real existing problem. If we wouldn't need a /29
> I wouldn't request it. Why should I? I'm not afraid not getting more v6 space
> any time later.

Still, having the "initial request" policy being severely more relaxed
than the "additional request" policy poses looming problems for those
who will have to request more address space later on. But it's a step
into the right direction...

Best regards,
Daniel (sharing the same pain)

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0