[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...

Dear AP-WG ;)

Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial 
allocation rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to 
whatever between /32 and /29 without additional justification needed.

One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each 
previously allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that 
space that no one else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for 
holder of /32 at the start of that /29"

So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of 
you got it with no issues. But not all of you.

We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other 
small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they 
have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space).

When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from 
IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy.

The policy says:

"LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request 
extension of these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without 
providing further documentation."

So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they 
never end up with more than a /29 *total*

3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29

Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be 
extended to a /30.

When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that 
word *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we 
should somehow correct this.

New suggested text would be:

"LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing 
further documentation."

With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go 
that route and draft the policy change proposal?

Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a 
threat to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this 
small change?

Thank you very much, Jan Zorz