[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi Tore,

> If your /29 remains unused I suppose I was wrong to consider you an
> early adopter of IPv6... ;-)

'Early adopter' is a loose term so I won't go there but by 'unused' I was more meaning in an 'able-to-be-reissued' sense i.e. not being present in the Internet routing table, on blacklists etc. :-)

> I'm thinking more of an organisation that, e.g., received an /29 (as
> that was what the policy permitted at the time) and actually started
> using it as best they could. After the passage of 2015-03 they'd like
> to get a /28-or-larger under the new allocation criteria, but
> un-deploying what they currently have in production in order to do so
> might not be operationally feasible.

Understood. This policy proposal is indeed not intended to cater for those situations and is focussed only on initial allocations. It might sound selfish however consideration was given to covering subsequent allocations also but it was decided that broadening the scope too much and potentially having to debate HD-ratios etc might be like trying to boil the ocean.

> Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to the proposal as it currently
> stands; I just thought the case was worth while mentioning. If you'd
> rather let whomever ends up in that situation to also be the one to fix
> it (through a 2015-02-ish proposal), then that's fair enough as far as
> I'm concerned.

I'd rather leave subsequent allocations to a separate policy proposal if at all possible, but would certainly support its development (indeed making the proposal if there was no candidate sponsor). I think it stands to reason that any accepted change in criteria for initial allocation sizes ought to be also reflected in consideration of subsequent allocation requests also. Of course, there may be no easy way around the problem of some organisations having 'landlocked' allocations but even then renumbering might be the least-worst option (the alternative being slowly strangled by too small an allocation).

Regards,

Mathew