Hi, On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:45:52AM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
Ahem, future innovation with IPv6 (whatever that is, beyound disabling insecure protocol features) needs to take VSLM into account. It's also likely that the requirement that all unicast addresses most be within at least a /64 will be eventually overturned because those bits could be used in a more useful fashion.
This is well out of scope for any address policy discussion going on today. When and if the IETF decides that non-/64-subnets are a desirable feature, it makes sense to discuss the consequences on address policy here - before that, it's a waste of bits. Please let's be focussed on the question at hand - which side do we want to err to? - be very conservative in giving out IPv6 address space, risking that IPv6 will just never take off - for fear of running out of space "if we happen to very radically move the boundary by 8 bits multiple times" - be very liberal in giving out IPv6 address space, risking that we run out of FP001 sooner than expected, and that we will have to do a more restrictive policy later on - but doing our best to actually get IPv6 out and deployed Whatever we decide, history will tell us that we have been wrong in our predictions... Given the original question: as far as I understood the question, the RIPE NCC IPRAs consider the request to be inside the boundaries permitted by policy, if a bit larger than "typical". So we don't really need a formal policy change here, just guidance to the IPRAs "this is a good thing, give them the address space" or "this is not a good thing, refuse!". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279