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

Hi Jan,

On 9/27/13 9:01 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Richard Hartmann
[...]
> >   If /32 becomes the new default/minimum, keeping those limits seems to
> >   be counter-intuitive.
> >
> I concur.

noted.

>
> And I think it's worth keeping in mind that even a /48 is a ludicrously
> enormously large address space.

Actually, it's not such an enormous large amount, taking into 
consideration that 64 bits are out of scope. You are left with 16 bits 
(65K networks/end sites). And let's not forget that the recommendation 
is to give a customer at least a /56.

> >    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.
> >
>
> So do I, especially considering the turn of phrase, which is nearly
> guaranteed to instill a fear of running out somehow.
>
> Nobody should run out with a /48.

I am not sure what to understand from the statement above. It is up to 
the company managing the address space to make sure that they have a 
contract in place to keep it's sub-allocated space under control.

>
> I think it's somewhat sensible that a LIR should have access to a /32. :)

And the current policy allows even up to a /29 with no questions asked :-)

cheers,
elvis