[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

> > These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things
> > seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if others
> > think the same, we could change the limits.
> 
> If /32 becomes the new default/minimum, keeping those limits seems to
> be counter-intuitive.

I agree. We should propose /48 as the _minimum_ allocation for all special purposes, maybe with possible provisions for more.

> Aside from the difference between "ever need more" and "foreseeable
> future", this means that End Users will need to decide between /48 and
> /32. To pick a specific example, FOSDEM will apply for IPv6 PI soon.
> As they need more than one single /48, under that policy the seem to
> be _forced_ to a /32.
> 
> With a corporate hat on, I think it highly unlikely that anyone
> manager or sales person will be content with less than the absolute
> maximum they can get even if they don't need it. So save for a few
> corporations and maybe temporary allocations, I suspect everyone will
> go for a /32.

I agree that the either /48 with no room for expansion or /32 is too strict. I would go as far as to propose that End Users could request anything from /48 to /32 and also be limited to that. However, this may have implications on address reservations in RIPE, as was the case with LIRs being allocated a /32 but reserved a /29. So if to avoid renumbering and to encourage aggregation we end up allocating /48s, but reserving a /32 for each one, we probably will end up at the same point again.

Furthermore, as the "LIR incentive", I'd restrict End User allocations to a /32. If you need more, you should become an LIR.

____________________________________
Tero Toikkanen
Nebula Oy