IPv6 policy and Supernational-LIRs

>On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:05:09AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist KPNQwest wrote:
>[..]
>> > Not all of the /32s might even necessarily be visible globally, upstream
>> > could go through the /28.
>> 
>> Well, in our case they would. Problem is that we do not have a /28. My
>> point was to some extent that we should define this better. It's is a
>> single LIR, but the question is what the allocation should be for routing
>> purposes.

  I seem to be missing something here, because right now I cannot see a
  direct relationship between the fact that a LIR is a "regular" LIR or
  an aggregate LIR (multinational), or the size of the initial allocation
  (/35 vs /32 or /28) when we talk *routing table size*. I think the
  "load" comes from the *complexity*, all the rest is indeed a matter of a
  few bits...
  
  Wilfried.
  
PS: and by the way, the current state of some "major" provider(s) here in
    Europe seem to suggest that most of those discussions tend to become
    mute pretty often these days ;-)