On 18/11/2011 13:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 15/11/2011 14:26, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Should we put this as optional or suggestion?
All RIRs operate on the basis of stated need for their LIR's addressing requirements.
2011-04 suggests increasing the initial allocation from /32 to /29 on the basis that LIRs are going to need to deploy 6rd to their end-users.
Damn, clicked <send> on the wrong email #doh Continuing on the thread of thought in this email: -- Not every LIR is going to require an additional allocation for 6rd, simply because not every LIR is going to implement 6rd or any other transition technology. Therefore if 2011-04 is passed as it is, these LIRs are going to get an extra 3 bits of ipv6 address space for no reason. This violates the basis of RIR->LIR allocation policy. You get something for nothing which you frankly don't need and will never use. I'd like to suggest that the default allocation should continue to be /32, but if the LIR makes a claim that they are going to implement 6rd (or another equivalent transition technology which requires lots of address space), then they can receive up to a /29. If AP-WG doesn't want to do this, then we need to change the basic policy of allocation based on stated need to, well, something else. Not quite sure what. Nick /one day, i'll get the hang of this email thing