On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:42:09AM +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
We analysed the requests and questions we have received and presented the details at RIPE 50.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-ap-ipv6nu mbers.pdf
mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-50/address-policy-1.wmv
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html (section F)
Basically, ~2% of requests did not end in address space being registered. We don't know how many requests are not sent in.
Thanks Leo, very interesting. We noted one knockon effect of RIPE policy. I don't know the full details, but essentially for a tunnel broker service we wanted to offer a /48 to end sites out of an existing /32, but were unable to do so because the 'paperwork' to be sent on to RIPE-NCC for each /48 was needed in advance for the ISP owning the /32 to allocate a (say) /40 to the broker service, and that added a notable hurdle. So we ended up using a /48 for the broker and allocating /56 and /64 blocks. Is this the way it's meant to be, or should the ISP owning the /32 only need to report usage when asking for more space itself? -- Tim/::1