[members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme

On 21/01/2019 17:11, Patterson, Richard (Sky Network Services (SNS)) wrote:
> Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'd disagree with the "policies are
> working nicely" comment, right now I'm really struggling to get RIPE
> to accept my request for a larger-than-/29 allocation.
> 
> The simple math that a /29 only provides room for ~500K subscribers,
> when coupled with RIPE's own RIPE-690 BCOP `recommendation of /48 PD
> assignments, apparently isn't sufficient justification.

Hi,

I've heard this argument from other people also. I would expect that 
getting /32 or /29 should be easy for initial testing and also for small 
or mid-sized operators to deploy in production when they choose so.

If big operator decides to deploy IPv6 to all their customers and can 
prove that they have for example 10 million customers that they would 
like to enable with /48 subnets - then this should be more than enough 
for RIPE NCC IPRa's to give whatever is needed to do that.

If you can't prove that you have such a customer base and you *plan* to 
have them, then the usual bumpy and windy way of proving it applies - 
but if you *already* have users and infrastructure - why making 
deployment of IPv6 harder for operators when they decide to do it???

Confused, Jan