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

Hi,


> 
>> Here's what it would require:
>> 
>> --
>> Foo ISP is requesting a /29 because it intends to deploy 6rd.
>> --
>> 
>> Are you genuinely saying that it's too much work to put this into an
>> application form?
> 
> Seems pretty sensible and practical.
> 
> Tim
> 

not quite sure i understand the intention, but... if that's all one would need to 
write into the application form, what's the point of putting it there in the first place if no one 
verifies the claim? This actually renders the whole thing irrelevant because everyone
will just put that in their template or so. (*dejavue* i think someone already mentioned
that within the thread)

But maybe i lost the context within the thread... I usually stop following
threads in deep when they start going in circles at some point :-)
Shame on me in that case and please ignore my comment then.

I'm still all for the proposal, not being tied to any specific reason or any jumping
through hoops.
If someone needs even more, the usual documentation needs to be handed in, be it for 6rd or whatever.
Don't make policies too complicated for no reason. We're not (yet?) politicians here.
One default, not two, or three, or four, or whatever. 

/29 seems fine for that due to the historical reservations for early allocations. 
Then we're done, that's the default in the current /3, fullstop. 

That's what this proposal is about in the first place (my interpretation?) - just mentioning 6RD
as ONE possible feature that would benefit from it. The proposal also mentions more bits for proper 
subnetting/routing design for example.
Why is everyone focussing on the 6RD part? 


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect