James A. T. Rice wrote:
I strongly oppose on a number of counts:
Not every inetnum holder in the RIPE database justifies a PI IPv4 assignment, why on earth should they receive a PI IPv6 assignment?
Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them.
Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on giving them even if they had a use for it.
Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to entities when they have no need for them.
The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes.
Agreed on all counts - I strongly disagree with this proposal. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie