A /36 is already a sub-par allocation for an ISP, why would you want to go any smaller?On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:01 PM, John Mann (ITS) wrote:Hi,On 3 August 2011 05:32, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
...
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?I don't see any explanation for the /36 minimum allocation. Why isn't it say /40? or /48?
4. Allow LIRs to request nibble-aligned blocks of any size greater than
or equal to /36.
4.1 The default minimum is /32 unless the provider specifically
asks for a /36.Apart from the generic ...- Reduces the potential for harmful under-sized assignments to end
users by removing any incentive to do so.If the permitted minimum were made even smaller, it may be able to also handle IXs and Critical Infrastructure - http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy/text section 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 …I would rather have these handled under a separate policy or a specific exemption inthis policy.Otherwise, it is very much a square peg in a round hole.