IPv6 policy and Supernational-LIRs

Hi,

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 09:29:33AM +0000, James Aldridge wrote:
> For IPv6, on the other hand, a supernational registry can only get a single
> allocation, irrespective of its size and contributions to the NCC.  I don't
> recall this policy change being discussed in the RIPE policy making forum (the
> LIR WG) being being put in place by the NCC for the then interim IPv6 policy.
> 
> I am aware that there are few supernational registries and that they are a
> pain for the RIPE NCC but this policyy change seems to work against the
> aggregation principles we need to follow if we're not going to have the
> routing table growth rate we've seen with IPv4.

I don't understand why "not giving out multiple IPv6 blocks" is
"against the aggregation principles". 

Could you elaborate on this?

Being a bit more relaxed in judging whether a multinational LIR really
needs a "/22" (to be a bit extreme) would mimic the "IPv4 approach"
(give out more space than usual) fairly well.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   45201  (45114)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299