Hi Rob, Ruediger, On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:03:52PM +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
were doing was allowing more people to use IPv6. Are you suggesting the potential deaggregators can already get multiple prefixes per LIR?
They can't. This is why multiple people have brought up this issue in the APWG, originally asking for "special rules under which a second PA block could be assigned" - which found no consensus, so we changed the angle of attacking this.
If that is the case, then perhaps we do not need to relax the aggregation requirement.
We do - I think this was a misunderstanding between Ruediger and you. Ruediger is worried that the removal of the existing requirements might lead to misinterpretation on the side of the NCC IPRAs, who could then (theoretically) actually *suggest* large-scale deaggregation to new IPv6 applicants. Which would, of course, be harmful, and not the aim of this policy change. So we definitely need to go forward with the routing WG document on IPv6 announcement best practices :-) - which could then be used by the IPRAs as "operator community" reference. Confusion cleared up? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279