Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal ] prop-112: On demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
4 Feb
2015
4:14 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation2) it doesn't support allocation on nibble boundaries which operators have said repeatedly is a major issue.
I think there are two issues here, which are included in the same sentence:
LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations in the legacy IPv6
address blocks are able to request extension of each of these
allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization rate for
subsequent allocation and providing further documentation.
LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations in the legacy IPv6
address blocks are able to request extension of each of these
allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization rate for
subsequent allocation and providing further documentation.
Perhaps if prop-112 could be broken into two (for discussion purposes), we could achieve consensus?
If people are opposed to the drooping of needs-based allocation, it does not really matter what size we are going till.
Dean, if it was a /28 boundary (ignore how we would do that), would you be OK with prop-112?
What if the needs-based criterion was kept? Wouldn't people end up with non-nibble boundaries anyway, over time? Without prop-112, how do these older operators expand?
In my case, I am not-concerned about space wastage as such, more from a human point-of-view, I would *like* (but can live without) nibble-boundaries.