Hi, On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:02:42AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I didn't mention it in my previous email, but taken as its own data point, it suggests two things: 1. /29 is probably too large as a default allocation size because so few organisations have allocations larger than this,
Just for the record - this is, and always was, the goal of the IPv6 allocation policy -> give out chunks that are insanely big and most of the receivers will be happy forever with the address space they get, without having to waste human lifetime on argueing or coming back. "Insanely big", of course, needs to be balanced against "number of eligible receivers" and "overall address space size" - and doing that, a /29 is still somewhat conservative (as in "if we spend all of FP001 on /29s, we end up with 67 million /29s, which cannot be handled by BGP in the foreseeable future", so 'run out of space' is not the first problem we're going to hit here). Of course this puts people that really would prefer a "1 bit bigger" allocation in an uncomfortable spot. But this can not be avoided, because there's always some entities that *think* they need bigger, and others that actually *do*. Looking at your numbers again, it seems our current allocation policy does a nice job, making 99+% of the receiving members happy while not taxing the total address space available very much - and the remaining <1% could get more, when spending the effort. That said, maybe we need to work on the criteria, if legitimate use cases find it hard to argue for a /28 or /27. (*That* said, I'm not sure I find "256 routing nodes with 2048 prefixes each" a very realistic mapping of an ISP's network...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279