IPv6 policy and Supernational-LIRs

Hi,

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

Try again after the new policy is in place.

The old policy had no provisions for anything reasonable, but under the
new policy, it should be possible to get a /28.  Or maybe even a /20.
Or whatever make sense according to a "aggregation is very important,
conservation should not be neglected but is not the main issue".

Be prepared, though, to invest quite some thoughts into network structure,
plans for hierarchical address space distribution, and so on - the NCC will
need this to judge whether the request is reasonable, or outragious.  (Of
course I'd like a /20 too :-) - but there is no way I will get one, as I
can't demonstrate any reasonable need for it, and this is perfectly ok 
with me).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   45201  (45114)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299