On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, James Blessing wrote:
It seems that the consensus is that up to a /29 is the right amount of space for the majority of networks, if that is the case I've think we should add the following:
==
5.1.x
Organisations that have already received their initial allocations are able to request additional address space up to a /29 without supplying of further documentation as if they were a first time requestor.
==
The logic being that this solves the problem for networks who deployed before this change and avoids the issues with HD ratio (which I think needs some looking at, but not here)
I agree with this, and also with the general theme of the proposal of extending the initial allocation size. I do not feel that it is sensible to tie this into a specific transition mechanism so am happy with the more generic proposal that has been put together that will also allow better scalability in long term addressing plans. One thing that I do wonder is whether the (limited) overhead of the NCC processing these requests mean it is more desirable to limit this "re-request" to a single shot per-LIR (which will likely push people to request the whole /29), or whether permitting multiple requests grabbing a /32 at a time (up to the /29) is desirable. Personally I assume that most networks using this policy extension would go for the /29 straight off, but then there maybe further interaction with the charging scheme which dissuades this. -- Tom Hodgson tom@someaddress.net