Current text:
3.5. Conservation Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space, address policies should avoid unnecessarily wasteful practices. Requests for address space should be supported by appropriate documentation and stockpiling of unused addresses should be avoided.
Seems reasonable to me. It implies that giving someone a /21 based on their 6RD requirements is OK, but that they would have to return the allocation once they no longer need the transitional 6RD service.
Proposed new text:
3.5. Conservation and Administrative Ease Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space, historical evidence shows that what now seems infinit might one day turn out to become a scarce resource, Address policies should avoid unnecessarily wasteful practices of such resources. Requests for address space should be supported by appropriate documentation and stockpiling of unused addresses should be avoided. Assignment of address space based on the sole argument of administrative ease is not permitted. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, ease of billing administration and network management.
I disagree with this. If we are willing to accept that allocations can be temporary, and should be returned when no longer needed, then administrative ease is a good reason to justify a larger allocation, particular when this supports transition to native IPv6 networks. If a company needs a /21 to ease the burden of transition, and will return it to RIPE in 5 to 10 years after native IPv6 is fully deployed in their network then that seems reasonable to me. Any concerns that we have with possible shortages of IPv6 address space are well beyond the IPv6 transition, therefore 10 years should be considered short-term. --Michael Dillon