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

Hi Leo,

I'm happy to provide some clarification here.

On 20/10/2017 00:55, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Marco Schmidt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification"
>> is now in the Review Phase.
> I am neither speaking for or against the proposal but would like
> to ask to a question to clarify my understanding.
>
> The proposal states:
>
> "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.
>
> I had understood that defined reservations were no longer
> necessary for new allocations because of the changed approach to
> allocating address space.

The RIPE NCC currently reserves a /26 for every allocation up to a /29. 
For allocations larger than a /29, the next three bits are reserved.

This is based on a policy requirement that the RIPE NCC should maximise 
the potential for subsequent allocations to be contiguous with previous 
allocations:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684#aggregation

I hope this clarifies.

Kind regards,
Andrea Cima

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda