IPv6 policy and Supernational-LIRs

Kurt Erik Lindqvist KPNQwest wrote:
> Now that we have the new IPv6 policy in place, and we have try and start
> using it, I have a small problem. We have been allocated a IPv6 block for
> the Supernational-LIR. However, the actual LIR consits of several ASes,
> each present at it's own IX and with it's own routing policy.
> 
> To me, a Supernational-LIR consists of several sub-LIRs. My problem is
> that RIPE will only allocate on /35 block to us, saying that is the
> allocation for our LIR. This means that we will end up having to break
> that block into smaller announcements, one per each sub-LIR.

There is a definite change between the IPv4 and IPv6 allocation policies for
supernational LIRs as far as the RIPE NCC is concerned.

For IPv4, supernational registries (contributing as, for example, as KPNQwest
does for the eu.eunet registry, the equivalent of 6 large LIRs) would receive
up to 1.5 times the number of allocations from the NCC that a single large
registry would get.

For IPv6, on the other hand, a supernational registry can only get a single
allocation, irrespective of its size and contributions to the NCC.  I don't
recall this policy change being discussed in the RIPE policy making forum (the
LIR WG) being being put in place by the NCC for the then interim IPv6 policy.

I am aware that there are few supernational registries and that they are a
pain for the RIPE NCC but this policyy change seems to work against the
aggregation principles we need to follow if we're not going to have the
routing table growth rate we've seen with IPv4.

James