Hi, On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:18:58PM +0200, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 12 November 2024.
I'm somewhat neutral on the *need* for this change - a /29 is quite a huge block of addresses (= only few networks will not be able to fit into it) and - coming frmo a /35 - I do not see "DNS is made easier" as a compelling reason - this is setup once for the top level domain or domains ("8 ip6.arpa zones for a /29"), and then the much more interesting question on "how to deal with possibly zillions of records and subdomains?" starts. This said, I do not see much harm in this - the numbers permit doing /28s as minimum size for LIRs. OTOH, I do not see the need to state "/32 *or* /28" in the policy document, because both the NCC and the LIRs will need to deal with non-nibble-sized allocations forever - so forcing this now ("I need a /31, but have to take a /28, why?") is not something I'd go for. "allocation of /32 up to /28" would do the job for those who want a /28 just fine. (JFTR, we have a /32 that came from being a /35 - and it has never been extended to a /29, because, why? We're never going to fill it, unless our business model changes in very significantly). Short answer: neutral on the /28 thing, but permit a range. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, 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