Re: [sig-policy] prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequentIPv6 alloc
On 04/02/2010, at 9:32 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Hey Terry,
> When you refer to needs... 'needs' can be more than the sheer number of single addresses. Even APNIC in their utilisation measures based on a percentage relating to /56's. 'Needs' could be network design and other considerations.
I think this is a fine distinction that needs to be made in the APNIC policies. To date, all text that I have read (and promptly forgotten) angles the "need" definition mostly toward usage as a volume or consumption metric.
> As of the 10th of February, the requirement to aggregate your first ipv6 block has been removed. So anyone with a v6/32 has de-aggregate if they like. The issue here is community standards may make you un-routable to anyone utilising the common bogon filters.
Indeed - the community does what it does.. Even with complete removal of aggregation (which is really growing on me) the visibility of more specifics (when you actually want it for a disparate network) comes with less than ideal properties. Certainly nothing is guaranteed in routing.
The only thing I would like to see is some wording that suggests that such allocations should be advertised from separate autonomous systems (taking the academic definition of an autonomous system). From that I support the proposal.
> I've already seen this in the /35 we announce out of our /32 where the visibility in the US has been some 75% (not sure what measurement RIPE use to measure this) - but fluctuates.