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

[leo vegoda <]

Hi,

On 6 Dec 2005, at 11:55, Tim Chown wrote:

[...]

> > 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?
I think someone else mentioned that a sub-allocation would have  
worked quite nicely in a case like this. It's worth noting that the  
current policy does not require an LIR to get approval before making  
a sub-allocation of any size.

Regards,

--
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC