The RIPE currently reserves a /29 for every initial /32. So as long as there is a policy that allows expansion of the initial assignment based upon a sound network design there should not be any issue to bump it up to a bigger block.
Jasper
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 5:26 PM To: Ivan Pepelnjak Cc: 'Jan Zorz @ Go6.si'; 'Yannis Nikolopoulos'; ipv6-wg@ripe.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Hi Ivan,
Let me try to understand:
(A) We don't disagree that he might actually deserve more than /32 (B) According to my understanding of previous discussions I had on
Some years ago... in other mail like this... "You want to change how IPv4 routing works? And RIP? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4632 ;-) kix "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" Para <gvandeve@cisc "Ahmed Abu-Abed" o.com> <ahmed@tamkien.com>, "RIPE Enviado por: IPv6" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> ipv6-wg-admin@ cc ripe.net <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 19/07/2011 allocation (ripe-512 issues) 11:29 Clasificación You want to change how IPv6 SLAAC works? And ND? G/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ahmed Abu-Abed Sent: 19 July 2011 11:16 To: RIPE IPv6 Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) I think we will keep having having these issues until the minimum subnet assignment (outside point to point links) can be smaller than /64 which is an astronomical waste of public addresses for a home or business assignment. This may be too late to fix for the current block of globally routable addresses, but minimum subnet size is worth reconsidering by the IETF for the future blocks. -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jasper Jans" <Jasper.Jans@espritxb.nl> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:38 AM To: "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl>; "Ivan Pepelnjak" <ip@ioshints.info> Cc: "'Jan Zorz @ Go6.si'" <jan@go6.si>; "'Yannis Nikolopoulos'" <dez@otenet.gr>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) this
topic, RIPE might actually have already reserved extra space for his future needs (C) According to the current rules he can't get another /32 for a total of /31 without using most of the current /32 (and hoping his next /32
will be adjacent) (D) Someone is seriously suggesting he returns the current /32 and asks for a brand new /31 which he will likely get.
All correct. The current policy doesn't permit the RIPE NCC to give out extra address space for an existing allocation until the HD ratio has been reached. They are allowed to give more than a /32 when someone requests a new allocation though. I have had this same issue and I got the same answer.
After reading the policies with this in mind I can only conclude that the RIPE NCC is implementing the policy correctly. If we want the NCC to do something else someone has to write a policy proposal.
Thanks, Sander
Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
_____________________________________________________________________ Mensaje analizado y protegido por Telefonica Grandes Clientes