On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Michael Adams wrote:
- For the sort of LIR which doesn't require a transition technology like this, /32 is probably a lot more than the LIR will ever need anyway.
We don't intend to use 6RD but we would like to extend our allocation to /29 in order to configure proper v6 address-pools on our access-routers. For us the proposal will resolve a real existing problem. If we wouldn't need a /29 I wouldn't request it. Why should I? I'm not afraid not getting more v6 space any time later.
Still, having the "initial request" policy being severely more relaxed than the "additional request" policy poses looming problems for those who will have to request more address space later on. But it's a step into the right direction... Best regards, Daniel (sharing the same pain) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0