[address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

Hi,

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> ???As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary.

Speaking as a long-time IPv6 user, I see no real benefit in this.

Yes, a /29 means I have to set up 8 reverse DNS zones, instead of one.

Bummer.

And my IP management tool might need to learn about non-magic bit numbers
(but it will need to understand that anyway if I do reasonably-sized
internal suballocations, like "a /34 for a region" and not "a /36 because
the tool cannot do /34s").

"Just because ARIN does it" is also not a good reason to follow suit - 
like, "lots of people going for /36 allocations, because /32 is too
big and, priced-by-size, too expensive"...


(But this is strictly my *personal* opinion.  If there is sufficient 
support in the WG, I'll shepherd a corresponding proposal, of course)

Gert Doering
        -- long time IPv6 allocation holder
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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/20180502/2d03911a/attachment.sig>