On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dean Pemberton dean@internetnz.net.nz
wrote:
- it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation
- 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.
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.
