Hi Leo, I'm happy to provide some clarification here. On 20/10/2017 00:55, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Marco Schmidt wrote:
[...]
Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the Review Phase. I am neither speaking for or against the proposal but would like to ask to a question to clarify my understanding.
The proposal states:
"Although the IPv6 address space is huge, it's still finite. Users only needing a /48 (or less) for their organisation would also block a full /29 prefix when forced to become LIR which seems unproportioned."
But some years ago, the RIPE NCC stated that it was using a bisection approach to allocate from its /12: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-July/006176.h...
Is that still the case and if it is, it would be good to understand how each new /32 allocation blocks a /29.
I had understood that defined reservations were no longer necessary for new allocations because of the changed approach to allocating address space.
The RIPE NCC currently reserves a /26 for every allocation up to a /29. For allocations larger than a /29, the next three bits are reserved. This is based on a policy requirement that the RIPE NCC should maximise the potential for subsequent allocations to be contiguous with previous allocations: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684#aggregation I hope this clarifies. Kind regards, Andrea Cima
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda