This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]