1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation
2) 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.