[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi,

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:37:34AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> Although I'd personally like to see stricter requirements and smaller
> allocations sizes for IPv6 in general, 

Slightly off-track, but you made me curious.  Given the number of /29s and
/32s available in FP001, and the potential numbers of LIRs in the future
(like, things explode and we'll see 100.000 LIRs) - where do you see the
problem with our allocation sizes?

I think we should balance between "too big" (aka: FP001 fills up, and
new LIRs won't be able to get what they need [or we start using FP010])
and "too small" (aka: LIRs will have to squeeze inside, and resort to
unwanted behaviour, like "give customers only a single /64" or even
"single /128").

I see "/32 as default, up to /29 if you ask" as very reasonable middle
ground...

Gert Doering
        -- speaking as IPv6 user who does math
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150511/a13cd49e/attachment.sig>