Hi Yanis, That sounds surprising, but in any case, a few weeks ago, a new policy proposal to facilitate this has been approved. I think is already implemented or it will a matter of a few days, so you should not have any problem at all to justify an allocation for 1.6 millions of customers or even much more, with a /48. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> Responder a: <dez@otenet.gr> Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 11:24 Para: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> CC: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions On 04/11/2017 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: > >> 3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many /32 we >> need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users and >> our /29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that? > > Yes. /48 per site is ok as per all IETF and RIPE documents I am aware of. > > So if your /29 is too small for your customer base, go get another one. > I know ISPs who returned their /29 before they even started serious > deployment, and received larger space. I encourage people to do just this. > That's great to hear but when we upgraded our /32 to a /29 (~2011), this was not the case unfortunately (meaning that RIPE would not accept our long term addressing plan as a reason enough to get multiple /29s ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.