On 19/02/2019 12:44, Patterson, Richard (Sky Network Services (SNS)) wrote:
We're perhaps a less common case with a greenfield deployment, large IPv6-only focused deployment from day one, large scale forecasts and proven track record. We did get there in end, but it was a rather frustrating process with lots of back and forth emails via a ticketing system, conference calls, challenging and requests for commercially sensitive information around forecasts and topology deployments (without RIPE being willing to sign NDAs). I was very close to giving up and designing around /56 PDs for customers instead of /48s.
This shouldn't be the experience you get if you are enthusiastic about deploying IPv6 to end customers. This is just plain wrong. I understand that if we stick strictly to the policy this can be interpreted as a valid process, but I still think this shouldn't be the default in such cases.
It felt like the IPv4-conservative approach was being applied to IPv6, and that kind of defeats the purpose IMO.
Agreed 100%. Cheers, Jan