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

Marco Schmidt wrote:

[...]

> Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification"
> is now in the Review Phase.

I am neither speaking for or against the proposal but would like
to ask to a question to clarify my understanding.

The proposal states:

"Although the IPv6 address space is huge, it's still finite.
Users only needing a /48 (or less) for their organisation would
also block a full /29 prefix when forced to become LIR which
seems unproportioned."

But some years ago, the RIPE NCC stated that it was using a
bisection approach to allocate from its /12:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-July/006176.html

Is that still the case and if it is, it would be good to
understand how each new /32 allocation blocks a /29.

I had understood that defined reservations were no longer
necessary for new allocations because of the changed approach to
allocating address space.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171019/281ca72d/attachment.p7s>