On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> 1) it doesn't appear to support needs based allocation
> 2) it doesn't support allocation on nibble boundaries which operators have
> said repeatedly is a major issue.
>
I think there are two issues here, which are included in the same sentence:
LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations in the legacy IPv6
address blocks are able to request extension of each of these
allocations up to a /29 without meeting the utilization rate for
subsequent allocation and providing further documentation.
Perhaps if prop-112 could be broken into two (for discussion purposes), we
could achieve consensus?
If people are opposed to the drooping of needs-based allocation, it does
not really matter what size we are going till.
Dean, if it was a /28 boundary (ignore how we would do that), would you be
OK with prop-112?
What if the needs-based criterion was kept? Wouldn't people end up with
non-nibble boundaries anyway, over time? Without prop-112, how do these
older operators expand?
In my case, I am not-concerned about space wastage as such, more from a
human point-of-view, I would *like* (but can live without)
nibble-boundaries.
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
