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

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:16:32PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> That???s why I suggested that the limit can be only /64 if we want to have a in PI at the time being.

A /64 for what?  per customer?

So, what is the answer we give to the NCC when they come to us and say
"so, this large Telco with 10 million customers has asked for a /40 PI,
to give all their customers a /64"?

Not that a /40 would really "lots of space", and it's one routing table
slot either way, but we need to decide "is this something we consider 
'acceptable use' or 'deny this request'".

(I pretend to not have an opinion, so you, as the community, decide)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171108/65bd4ee6/attachment.sig>