I thought the general feeling previously (at and around RIPE 89) was that this approach was an easy quick win and worth doing, as it doesn't preclude any additional proposals to fix the underlying problem(s) properly.
I also thought that increasing the default from 29 to 28 was fairly non-contentious because it is already sparsely allocated as a 28, so it's effectively no-impact to consumption anyway. Perhaps a naive view of things on my part.
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Date: Tuesday, 4 November 2025 at 22:34
To: Patterson, Richard (Senior IP Architect) <Richard.Patterson@sky.uk>
Cc: Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org>, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net>, RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [address-policy-wg] Re: 2024-02 New Version Policy Proposal (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28)
Hi Rich,
Patterson, Richard (Senior IP Architect) wrote on 04/11/2025 20:38:
Nick, I don't think the 11 LIRs or 0.3% statistic is a valid indicator;
It's 68 LIRs > /29. 11 refers to those which currently have /28. And I'm sure there are more than 68 networks in the RIPE service region with > 500k customers.
Having had to fight tooth and nail with the NCC several times now to get larger IPv6 allocations, I assure you the pain is real; I support a proposal to make it easier to get a larger-than-29 allocation, so indirectly I support this proposal.
I would prefer a proposal to improve policy that streamlines the process and removes the required head-banging-against-brickwall that is currently required to justify a larger allocation, but wording is hard, changing a number from 29 to 28 is (or should be)
much easier.
I agree with you that it's too difficult to get larger allocations, but changing the default to /28 is not the solution. All it does is patch a specific case which is not really applicable to most service providers. If there's a problem which causes it to be
too difficult to get more than the default size of allocation, then let's fix the problem properly.
Nick
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and
external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky Limited and Sky International AG and are used under licence.