Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

[Tim Chown <]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:42:09AM +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
> 
> We analysed the requests and questions we have received and presented
> the details at RIPE 50.
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-ap-ipv6nu
> mbers.pdf
> 
> mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-50/address-policy-1.wmv
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html
> (section F)
> 
> Basically, ~2% of requests did not end in address space being
> registered. We don't know how many requests are not sent in.

Thanks Leo, very interesting.

We noted one knockon effect of RIPE policy.   I don't know the full 
details, but essentially for a tunnel broker service we wanted to offer 
a /48 to end sites out of an existing /32, but were unable to do so
because the 'paperwork' to be sent on to RIPE-NCC for each /48 was needed 
in advance for the ISP owning the /32 to allocate a (say) /40 to the 
broker service, and that added a notable hurdle.   So we ended up using
a /48 for the broker and allocating /56 and /64 blocks.   Is this the
way it's meant to be, or should the ISP owning the /32 only need to 
report usage when asking for more space itself?

-- 
Tim/::1