Greetings! First I do not like the /27 minimum allocation and assignment. I do not belive that people will adapt their filtering policies for this single /8. And I do not belive in RFC5211 at all. Here in the Czech Republic I know about some ISPs which just stopped all IPv6 deployment activites probably due to crisis-related budget cuts. So I do not like any policy which gives existing ISPs a chance to obtain some addresses from the last /8. In my opinion they have plenty of time to deploy IPv6 transition mechanisms and are able to obtain addresses for NAT(-PT|...) under current policies before the End. I would rather reserve the last /8 purely for newcomers and I would set some maximum allocation and assignment boundary in order to make sure that it will sustain for at least X newcomers which are expected to come in Y years. I do not try to argue that this is more "fair" than the 2009-04 and I do not want to punish existing ISPs. I just want to support more newcomers instead of handing out some portion of the last /8 to companies which have (in case of LIRs) at least /21 and are likely able to pick addresses for IPv6 transition mechanisms from their old allocations. Best regards, Tomas Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
PDP Number: 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment
-- Tomáš Hlaváček <tomas.hlavacek@elfove.cz>