IPv6 policy and Supernational-LIRs

> The problem with that isn't so much the lenght of the number (that's just
> "linear memory waste"), the problem that I see is that the number of
> ASes actually in use reflect the complexity of the overall topology -
> and *that* goes into BGP convergence times much stronger than linearily.

Agreed. It was merly a joke. Personally I think that most customers asking
for multihoming is actually asking for something completly different. But
we have been down that discussion before...

> 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.

> The new policy (effective next monday) will permit this - if you come up
> with good reasons and some thought about addressing plans and hierarchy,
> getting something "large enough" should not be a unsolveable problem.   At
> least that was the intention - the address space is large enough so that
> haggling over "we need a /28" - "no you can only get a /31 plus a /32"
> should not occur (unless the "need" for a /28 really isn't justificable).

I agree, but RIPE NCC have said we will only get the /35.

Best regards,

- kurtis -