On 10/21/11 2:02 PM, boggits wrote:
On 21 October 2011 12:42, Gert Doering<gert@space.net> wrote:
I'm not exactly sure how you're proposing to modify this? "Special case for 6rd only"?
Send a guidance note...
"Dear IPRAs,
The AP-WG believe that 6RD as discussed in RFC5969 is a valid reason to request more than a /32 in order to give end user networks a sensible level of address space but please make sure that requests above a /29 have followed the correct mathematical calculations.
Love The AP-WG"
... this doesn't require a change to the policy (correct me if I'm wrong) and stops people just requesting a /29 without a challenge.
Hi, We went through long discussion regarding this and this also needs a change of a policy, making one particular technology special. The common voice from community was "please, don't make 6rd special, because we don't know what follows". And, /29 is not a considerable waste of space, specially if we know that legacy IPv6 initial allocations were done with /29 reservation, so that place is there and will not be used by anyone else other than LIR, that got /32 from the beginning of this reservation. Why not making IPv6 more easily deployable, without those restrictions from IPv4 and legacy thinking about maximum conservation? Cheers, Jan