Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

[Dave Pratt <]

Hiya all,

In my view it is not so ambitious to be recommending /16 allocations to
"supernational" organisations as this is the policy originally recommended in
RFC2374 and elsewhere.

On the other hand: "Will these supernational organisations be advertising
parts of this /16 into the global routing table". If the answer is yes, then I
think they should be making multiple regional or national requests, and
receiving multiple /20 or /24 allocations according to their likely longterm
requirements in each region.

Everytime an LIR requests and gets additional addresses because of an
insufficiently small original allocation (whether through the 80% rule, or 90%
according to RFC2450 !! or my suggested 10% rule), the RIR's have effectively
made a mistake as this means one unnecessary route in the routing table.

I'm not suggesting the RIR's give a /16 (or /20,/24,/28,/32, for that matter)
to anybody who asks. The requester must justify that such an allocation is
appropriate (with the RIR's taking a much more generous stance in
contrast to what they need to do with IPv4).

Cheers
Dave
BT Ignite GmbH,

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Tim Chown wrote:
->As a group, we have not discussed more ambitious suggestions such as those
->at http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html where a /16 is suggested for the
->"supernational" organisations.
->Tim