[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...

Hi,

I fully support this (proposal), in some cases it may make the routing 
table a little bit smaller...

Rgds

Ray






On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:

> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:53:27 +0100
> From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si>
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change
>     proposal (sanity check email)...
> 
> Dear AP-WG ;)
>
> Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial allocation 
> rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to whatever between /32 
> and /29 without additional justification needed.
>
> One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each previously 
> allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that space that no one 
> else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for holder of /32 at the 
> start of that /29"
>
> So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of you 
> got it with no issues. But not all of you.
>
> We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other 
> small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they have 3 x 
> /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space).
>
> When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from 
> IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy.
>
> The policy says:
>
> "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of 
> these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further 
> documentation."
>
> So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they never 
> end up with more than a /29 *total*
>
> 3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29
>
> Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be 
> extended to a /30.
>
> When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that word 
> *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we should somehow 
> correct this.
>
> New suggested text would be:
>
> "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request
> extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing further 
> documentation."
>
> With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go that 
> route and draft the policy change proposal?
>
> Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a threat 
> to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this small change?
>
> Thank you very much, Jan Zorz
>
>
>

-- 
************************************************************
Raymond Jetten                       Phone: +358 3 41024 139
Senior System Specialist               Fax: +358 3 41024 199
Elisa Oyj / Network Management      Mobile: +358 45 6700 139
Hermiankatu 3A                       raymond.jetten at elisa.fi
FIN-33720, TAMPERE                       http://www.elisa.fi
************************************************************