On 1/4/12 8:01 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote:
- The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded
two issues here:
1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/0065...
specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29.
Nick, hi. Yes, as you said. We have been through this discussion and there is no point in re-doing it again. Your suggestion is just inserting the pointless obstacle, making LIRs claim they will do 6rd even if they do not intend to do so - to get /29. We can go around in circles, but I'm not sure we need this :) We thought to insert partially your idea with suggestion, that LIR should clarify just for documentation purposes, why they need more than /29, but at the end decided, that this is not adding anything, just making the policy longer.
2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for traditional ipv6 assignments?
30 + 32 = 62 :) Cheers, Jan