All, I'd like to strongly support the proposal as well. To be fully honest here I've not yet encountered a single adress planning exercise where "we" (which included organizations with +300K users and 700K IP addresses in their IPAM database) didn't easily get along with a /32. I hence initially shared the scepticism ("Rly? who needs more than a /29?") brought up at the mic and on the mailing list. Still, I found the perspective laid out by Mathew convincing and in general I think RIPE policies (and their assumptions) shouldn't come into the way of organizations with flexible needs based on their individual environments. Overall the criteria provided by John (Collins) can be a reasonable starting point for the development of criteria needed, but they'll probably need some refinement. Best Enno On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 04:22:14PM +0200, Thomas01.Schmidt@conti.de wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

On Fri May 22 John Collins wrote:

-----------------------------------------

Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space.

-----------------------------------------

I represent on of these "Enterprise LIRs" and like to support this proposal. The organisational structure could request specific consideration in the IP address management design (e.g. caused by M&A, subsidaries or divisional independencies under a holding). The removed text in the new policy proposal

------------------begin---------------

If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure.

-----------------end------------------

gives the freedom to allocated an address design independ by the number of existing users. We currently face the existing limitation by become LIR at ARIN and APNIC too. The additional address allocations helps us to cover the global parts of the company with sufficient address space but with additional expenses and costs.

Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind regards / Meilleures salutations

Thomas Schmidt IT Corporate Infrastructure Strategy, Network IT CO IN ST N

Continental AG Vahrenwalder Str. 9, D-30165 Hannover, GERMANY

Phone: 0049 511 938-1269 Telefax: 0049 511 938-81269 Email: Thomas01.Schmidt@conti.de http://www.conti.com http://www.continental-corporation.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Postfach/Postbox 1 69, D-30001 Hannover Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Reitzle Vorstand/Executive Board: Dr. Elmar Degenhart (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Jose A. Avila, Dr. Ralf Cramer, Frank Jourdan, Helmut Matschi, Dr. Ariane Reinhart, Wolfgang Schaefer, Nikolai Setzer, Hans-Juergen Duensing Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Hannover Registergericht/Registered Court: Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 3527, USt.-ID-Nr./VAT-ID-No. DE 115645799 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Proprietary and confidential. Distribution only by express authority of Continental AG or its subsidiaries.

-- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================