[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

You want to change how IPv6 SLAAC works? And ND? 

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Ahmed Abu-Abed
Sent: 19 July 2011 11:16
To: RIPE IPv6
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

I think we will keep having having these issues until the minimum subnet

assignment (outside point to point links) can be smaller than /64 which
is 
an astronomical waste of public addresses for a home or business
assignment.

This may be too late to fix for the current block of globally routable 
addresses, but minimum subnet size is worth reconsidering by the IETF
for 
the future blocks.

-Ahmed


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jasper Jans" <Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:38 AM
To: "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl>; "Ivan Pepelnjak" 
<ip at ioshints.info>
Cc: "'Jan Zorz @ Go6.si'" <jan at go6.si>; "'Yannis Nikolopoulos'" 
<dez at otenet.gr>; <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>; <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

> The RIPE currently reserves a /29 for every initial /32.
> So as long as there is a policy that allows expansion of the initial
> assignment based upon a sound network design there should not be
> any issue to bump it up to a bigger block.
>
> Jasper
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of 
> Sander Steffann
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 5:26 PM
> To: Ivan Pepelnjak
> Cc: 'Jan Zorz @ Go6.si'; 'Yannis Nikolopoulos'; ipv6-wg at ripe.net; 
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
>
> Hi Ivan,
>
>> Let me try to understand:
>>
>> (A) We don't disagree that he might actually deserve more than /32
>> (B) According to my understanding of previous discussions I had on
this 
>> topic, RIPE might actually have already reserved extra space for his 
>> future needs
>> (C) According to the current rules he can't get another /32 for a
total 
>> of /31 without using most of the current /32 (and hoping his next /32

>> will be adjacent)
>> (D) Someone is seriously suggesting he returns the current /32 and
asks 
>> for a brand new /31 which he will likely get.
>
> All correct. The current policy doesn't permit the RIPE NCC to give
out 
> extra address space for an existing allocation until the HD ratio has
been 
> reached. They are allowed to give more than a /32 when someone
requests a 
> new allocation though. I have had this same issue and I got the same 
> answer.
>
> After reading the policies with this in mind I can only conclude that
the 
> RIPE NCC is implementing the policy correctly. If we want the NCC to
do 
> something else someone has to write a policy proposal.
>
> Thanks,
> Sander
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden
is 
> op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
>
>