jordi.palet--- via address-policy-wg wrote on 06/11/2025 14:42:
However, I don’t think this should be taken as the “only real data” (and consequently % calculated by Nick are not good - we will not have good data unless every member comes and say if they will have wanted a shorter prefix). Jordi,
Just to clarify the figures I quoted: a /29 will provide 2^(48-29) = 2^19 /48s. In other words, /29 is roughly a reasonable general magnitude for an organisation with a requirement of up to around 500,000 /48s. The questions we need to ask are: 1. roughly how many organisations are there in the RIPE NCC service region that need > 500,000 /48s. I.e. what's the size of the problem we're trying to solve here? 2. how can we fix the ipv6 allocation policy to help these organisations get the address space that they need? If we tweak the netmask one bit to the left, from /29 to /28, then all that will happen is that we'll be talking about 1m customers instead of 1/2m, but the underlying problem will still be there, and unsolved. That is why we need to discuss and try to fix the underlying problem. Nick