[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi,

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:18:15PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> And that's actually something we need to keep in mind when setting policy
> today.

Actually, I am (and I'm having an wary eye on the community :-) ).

But I *do* the math.  We're inside the very first /12 ever assigned to 
the NCC, and that is inside the FP 001 - so comparing the number of
possible consumers of "huge address blocks" (MoDs, incumbents, ...)
- basically, "a few per country in the RIPE region", totalling "a few
hundred" - with the number of /24s inside the /12 (4096), this seems
to be withing acceptable bounds (well, split the /12 into 2048 /24s and
65000 /29s, so "there is still enough for smaller LIRs").

And if the /12 fills up, we have 507 left inside FP001.

And if *that* fills up, we get 6 more tries on a more conservative side.

So, yes, I think we're making good use of the available space, but
we're not overdoing it... 

Gert Doering
        -- community member
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150512/8b9de156/attachment.sig>