[address-policy-wg] [Ext] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55:33PM +0000, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> "Although the IPv6 address space is huge, it's still finite.
> Users only needing a /48 (or less) for their organisation would
> also block a full /29 prefix when forced to become LIR which
> seems unproportioned."
> 
> But some years ago, the RIPE NCC stated that it was using a
> bisection approach to allocate from its /12:
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-July/006176.html
> 
> Is that still the case and if it is, it would be good to
> understand how each new /32 allocation blocks a /29.

Since the initial allocation today can be a /29 with "no questions asked",
this is not so much a matter of "reserving 3 additional bits, in addition
to the allocation" as of "the allocations are this size today".

(Not exactly sure what happens if a LIR steps up and says "I only want
a /32!!" - Marco, can you comment on that?  Will the NCC still *block*
the /29, or might it happen that other /32s out of that /29 will 
eventually be allocated to someone else?)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
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: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171020/551fccd2/attachment.bin>