On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:07 AM, HENDERSON MICHAEL, MR > <[email protected]> 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. I agree as well. Owen
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
