[address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question

Dear all,

We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone  
caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated.

Problem:
LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479.
Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29).
Current policy is to assign /32 per AS.
Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS.

Arguments for new policy:
- RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals)

Arguments for current policy:
- Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing  
policies, no aggregation.
- /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be  
enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment  
planning if not.
- The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if  
any current end-user (university) would require independent routing  
policies.
- We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will  
happen) will be far off from 2001:778

I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather  
deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ?
TIA

sincerely,
   Raimundas Tuminauskas
   KTU ITD / LITNET NOC
   Studentu 48a, Kaunas
   51367, Lithuania
phone: +370 37300033
fax: +370 37300643
email: raimis at litnet.lt