[address-policy-wg] 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM, James Blessing
<james.blessing at despres.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems that the consensus is that up to a /29 is the right amount of
> space for the majority of networks, if that is the case I've  think we
> should add the following:
<snip>

It is not that I disagree on that /29 is a good size... but, just to
repeat myself and some others.

Why are we doing this step by step all over again? Last we went from
/35 to /32, now we go from /32 to /29.
I guess the next time we'll be talking about this topic is around 2015-2017...
Why not do it properly this time around? Like a /26 or so? We got
plenty of address space to burn really....


> ==
>
> 5.1.x
>
> Organisations that have already received their initial allocations are
> able to request additional address space up to a /29 without supplying
> of further documentation as if they were a first time requestor.
>
> ==
>
> The logic being that this solves the problem for networks who deployed
> before this change and avoids the issues with HD ratio (which I think
> needs some looking at, but not here)

... but if no one want to use time this time around for making it a
/26 or so, the text above get my support to.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no