[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated toRIPE NCC

[Jeroen Massar <]

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 11:00 +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18
> > from the IANA in January 2005.
> 
> Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR.
> 
> I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i
> assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of !

What is the issue with this? Deutsche Telekom can _easily_ show demand
for the need for this allocation and that is the only thing they need to
do. I actually am very glad that they got this, now let's see how
quickly all Germans will have access to IPv6, this should give some
momentum to hosters saying "there are no IPv6 clients".

This policy has been in place for quite some time already and works for
most if not all people, complain address-policy-wg@localhost if you
really do not like it.

Btw we are nearing 1000 global IPv6 allocations over 77 countries ;)

1x /19
2x /20
2x /21
1x /23
59x /24
2x /27
57x /28
2x /30
1x /31
772x /32
11x /35

Totaling in 910 TLA prefixes. 145 of which 6bone, the /24 & /28's +
some /32's which will disappear next year (6/6/2006).
RIPE (432) APNIC (183) ARIN (130) LACNIC (20)
The RIPE region is of course in lead ;)

Also see: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/

> >    <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html>
> 
> BTW, i read
> 
> 	2001:2000::/20		===>  smallest RIPE Allocation : /32
> 
> and
> 
> 	"Smallest allocation" refers to the smallest allocation made to LIRs by the RIPE NCC
> 
> Since 2001:2000::/20 have only one allocation, should not it be "/20" ?

a /32 is "small", a /20 is "big", thus a /32 is the smallest prefix that
will be given from this block. The largest is indeed logically a /20.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part