[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Mon Oct 24 16:45:41 CEST 2011
On 10/24/11 3:29 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote: > > All, > > I support the thought that LIRs should be able to get up to a /29 as an > initial allocation with no documentation required. Hi, Good :) > However, that doesn't > mean I support the policy proposal in its current form. Here's why. In the > current policy text, it's very clear cut that unless you provide > documentation (which means you've thought about how to deploy), you get a > /32. I would not want a situation where people get a /29 without thinking, > making a mess of it and then come back. So you could get a /29 if you > asked for it specifically, otherwise you get a /32. Well, this part was meant to figure it out when implementing changed policy. My suggestion was that IPRA warns LIR that is requesting the initial IPv6 allocation, that /32 means different charges in the future than /29, so LIR can decide and get what they need. I was warned, that this is implementation specific issue and should not be part of the policy. Being said that, /32 still exists as minimum alloc size just to prevent someone saying "RIPE-NCC would like to pay us more" - we already discussed that in Dubrovnik, remember? :) > > So I would propose the following: > > Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to > receive an initial allocation of /32. For initial allocations up to /29 no > additional documentation is necessary. > > Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by > submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the > allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the > extent of the organisation's infrastructure. So, your suggestion is to give out /32 by default for clueless, but if someone requests more (up to /29) - fine, here it is. Hmm... looks like this makes sense. What others think? > > > --snip-- > > And, of course, using up your /29 in one go means no additional adjacent > reserved address space on the RIPE NCC books, but that's an implementation > issue :) With binary chops one must be very unlucky to get non-expansible space :) Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]