[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
leo vegoda
leo at ripe.net
Wed Dec 7 19:08:03 CET 2005
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
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]