On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM, James Blessing <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems that the consensus is that up to a /29 is the right amount of space for the majority of networks, if that is the case I've think we should add the following: <snip>
It is not that I disagree on that /29 is a good size... but, just to repeat myself and some others. Why are we doing this step by step all over again? Last we went from /35 to /32, now we go from /32 to /29. I guess the next time we'll be talking about this topic is around 2015-2017... Why not do it properly this time around? Like a /26 or so? We got plenty of address space to burn really....
==
5.1.x
Organisations that have already received their initial allocations are able to request additional address space up to a /29 without supplying of further documentation as if they were a first time requestor.
==
The logic being that this solves the problem for networks who deployed before this change and avoids the issues with HD ratio (which I think needs some looking at, but not here)
... but if no one want to use time this time around for making it a /26 or so, the text above get my support to. -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no