Hi, I fully support this (proposal), in some cases it may make the routing table a little bit smaller... Rgds Ray On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:

Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:53:27 +0100 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...

Dear AP-WG ;)

Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial allocation rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to whatever between /32 and /29 without additional justification needed.

One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each previously allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that space that no one else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for holder of /32 at the start of that /29"

So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of you got it with no issues. But not all of you.

We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space).

When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy.

The policy says:

"LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further documentation."

So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they never end up with more than a /29 *total*

3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29

Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be extended to a /30.

When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that word *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we should somehow correct this.

New suggested text would be:

"LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing further documentation."

With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go that route and draft the policy change proposal?

Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a threat to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this small change?

Thank you very much, Jan Zorz

-- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten     Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A              raymond.jetten@elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE          http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************

Hi, On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:53:27PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:

When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy.

The policy says:

"LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further documentation."

Actually, I think the IPRAs are reading something in there that has not been the intention by the WG (and it should be obvious from the discussions that it wasn't, because the case "what about a LIR that has more than one /32?" was never discussed) For non-native speakers (like me), the sentence above is perfectly fine to be interpreted as "... extensions of *any of these* allocations up to a total of /29..." and not "... up to a total of a /29 across all IPv6 stock the LIR has". We've been there with the "80% utilization" in IPv4, where the IPRA interpretation was more strict than what the WG intended, and it seems that this is another of these cases... Anyway, to give clear guidance to the NCC, I think having Jan and Emilio draft new text, have this be cross-checked by the NCC for interpretation leeway, and then formally accept it via the PDP, is the right way forward. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279