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 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. 

Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208   http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane