Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 14:18:25 Jeroen Massar wrote:
Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
This does not meet the requirements above. So you won't get it. It fully does, how else did AFRINIC assign a /32 to themselves?
This would have been your question instead of concluding so negatively on a global note.
Excuses, I will try to add a short bullet pointed list of items next time with a nice animated powerpoint presentation and an executive summary to make my question come across to you. I've sent it to all the RIR lists as it affects global policy decisions: that a single RIR is acting in their own good without even having asked their own membership about this situation. Their statement of "we are a RIR we know what we are doing" is not good enough, especially as there is no active policy actually allowing them to request such a allocation even under their own policies. Any policy that simply allows any party to get a /32 without justification is the same as when IPv4 started out, where everybody simply got a /8. Indeed at that timepoint there was enough space, but what is the main complaint from various people nowadays: that they should have gotten less as they didn't need it in the first place. We can indeed give IPv6 prefixes for free, give every household a /32, and we'll probably not run out yet; and if we do we have another 7 tries when 2000::/3 runs full. But is that really what people want? To simply squat on the address space as much as possible, so that you at least have it? Not a good thing, especially not a good thing when a RIR does it themselves. Greets, Jeroen