[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Jordi,

Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 02:20, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
> b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
> It can be argued that this proposal could increase the number of PI request to RIPE NCC.
> 
> Mitigation/counter-argument: This is not an issue and should not be considered as a “bad-effect”.
> 
> The resulting policy could be used to circumvent the allocation policy, avoiding creating a LIR.
> 
> Mitigation/counter-argument: This seems not to have sense as there must be a justification process anyway, and because the starting point is /48, an ISP willing to connect customers, will really want to be an LIR. Furthermore, if we want to be restrictive on this, we could add a limitation that the maximum sub-assignment can be /64.

how about... if we want to be restrictive - instead of limiting the size of the prefix, we limit the number of sub-assignments one can make from a PI?

elvis