On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:07 AM, HENDERSON MICHAEL, MR < michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
> However, I understand the current situation is that the ‘legacy’ IPv6 > address allocation was for smaller allocations within blocks on /29 > boundaries, if I read the Proposition correctly. > > As a special case only, I would support the allocation of these ‘legacy > /29’ blocks. The provisos being that firstly they do fall into this > ‘legacy’ category, and that secondly it is not possible (owing to > allocation to a third party) to allocate a /28 to the relevant resource > holder > I agree. As a small operator, who spends time helping other small operators offer IPv6, it would greatly benefit us if allocation (and hence our BGP announcements and filters) were on a /32 or /28. To those who are already within a /29, and the adjacent /29 is also allocated, a /29 is the least evil. But new allocations should be of, or from, a /28. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
