[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On 10/26/11 7:36 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Failing any of these points, I do not support the proposal on the
> basis that it is careless use of v6 space.

Hi,

At first, my thoughts was to go exactly the way you propose. But, then 
we had long discussions with many people, also RIPE-NCC staff (I just 
needed some data and how IPRAs operate), and then we presented the 
proposal at RIPE62 in Amsterdam. If you remember, one of proposed 
solutions was also separate v6 space for transition mechanisms and 
temporary allocations, but this idea did not manage to fly (maybe before 
the presentation, but not after).

The message we got back was "don't think v4 way, let's enable people to 
deploy IPv6 and not install speed bumps".

If this is a request, then our first thought was - let's go straight to 
/29 as minimum initial allocation - but this could be seen from some 
individuals as "ripping more money from LIRs", so we introduced "from 
/32 to /29" option.

I agree with all you said, just it seems it does not work this way. ARIN 
did that, but RIPE community want's it differently.

But, if we hear many more suggestions in this way, we can withdraw the 
proposal and go different way, but for now - let's hear what community 
has to say :)

Cheers, Jan