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

Hi Jens,

* Opteamax GmbH

> as far as I am informed each V6- allocation made by RIPE had always a
> "reserved" space after the actual allocation which allows "extending"
> upto /27 ... so returning seems not to be necassary ... at least not
> as long as /27 is sufficient.

Actually, the reservation is for a /29. That's precisely the reason why
the 6RD proposal allowed for extension up to that exact size:

«Legacy /32 allocations were allocated with a /29 of “reserved for
future expansion” space in mind and can very easily be expanded within
that /29. As such, a move from /32 to /29 does not impact negatively
RIPE NCC, nor will it lead to discrimination among existing
allocations. As the reserved space is already present and would not be
allocated to anyone else other than the holder of the /32 already
allocated, it seems reasonable to go ahead and let LIRs use the
full /29 of space if they need it.»

 -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-04

In hindsight, it is a bit of a shame they didn't reserve a /28 instead.
That way, 2011-04 could have moved the boundary with a full nibble. Oh
well.

Tore