Hi Vesna! Nice to hear from you. You say that this is about governmental networks but that is not actually mentioned in the proposal itself. If you are correct then the proposal should be changed to explicitly mention that. If you are not correct then this just leaves more discretion to RIPE, which is fine -- I've always found the NCC to be rational and reasonable. For an organisation like HUBS which has small but autonomous member networks and a /29, we basically do: 2a04:5d00::/32 -- pool for /64 networks with /44 allocated to each member. 2a04:5d01::/32 -- pool for /48 networks with /40 allocated to each member (currently unused!). 2a04:5d02::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d03::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d04::/32 -- experimental 2a04:5d05::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d06::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d07::/32 -- reserved. In a country with 5 million population -- even several times that -- this ought to be plenty. If we need more I would expect to have to justify it! This does not really bear on DFZ routing table size unless there is a global policy on the horizon that will forbid announcing /44 or /40 networks i.e. when one of our members becomes multi-homed. The current policy says, "If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure." Deleting this is ok. Also ok would be substituting "extent and structure" for "extent". Without knowing any better I would have interpreted this as giving equal weight to number of users and topology. If you have a lot of users you get a big allocation. If your topology justifies you get a big allocation. So it may actually be that we don't even need a new policy, just more clarity on the interpretation. Cheers, -w On Mon, 11 May 2015 09:18:15 +0200, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> said: > Hi, there is this policy proposal (below) that is going to > change criteria for allocations to _governmental_ / national > networks -- but!! Maybe it can be used for the community > networks too?? > Would you be interested in reading this proposal, and seeing if > it would be sufficient, or are there any modifications possible > to suit your needs? > Now is the time :) > If you have any questions about "policy development process", > please let me know! > In short: you (anyone) can write to the mailing list below, and > say what you think of this proposal - agree, disagree, or how it > could be modified, and why. Then there will be more discussion, > proposal might get changed and finally accepted -- or > refused. If it's accepted, it becomes a new "policy", that is: > rules for allocating IPv6 to LIrs -- or their customers! > Concretely, if "additional aspects" can be expressed in terms > that "participants in mesh network are not countable customers" > and there is no "infrastructure" in the mesh... then maybe this > will work out better for the future community networks. > Thanks, Vesna > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [staff] > [policy-announce] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment > Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Date: Tue, 28 Apr > 2015 14:00:40 +0200 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> > Reply-To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net To: > policy-announce@ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net > Dear colleagues, > A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. > The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial > IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider > additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and > extent of the organisation's infrastructure. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 27 May 2015. > Regards > Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC