On 04/01/2012 23:58, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
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.
Hi Jan, maybe we need to disagree. I don't support the proposal as-is, but would support the proposal if it were to include minimal justification for /29 (based on the current default of /32). To recap, the reason I hold this view is: - it is a minimal change which requires virtually no overhead by the LIR, but will get them to think about whether they really need the space or not. - many LIRs will never need to use 6rd or any other transition technology, so assigning an extra 3 bits of address space is wasteful - 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. - RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a duty of good stewardship to the resources which they maintain. Increasing the amount of space allocated to LIRS by a factor of 8 without any justification whatever is (imo) bad stewardship of resources. Nick