[address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
lir at elisa.fi
lir at elisa.fi
Wed Nov 7 14:18:38 CET 2012
Hi, I fully support this (proposal), in some cases it may make the routing table a little bit smaller... Rgds Ray On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:53:27 +0100 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> > To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change > proposal (sanity check email)... > > Dear AP-WG ;) > > Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial allocation > rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to whatever between /32 > and /29 without additional justification needed. > > One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each previously > allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that space that no one > else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for holder of /32 at the > start of that /29" > > So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of you > got it with no issues. But not all of you. > > We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other > small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they have 3 x > /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space). > > When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from > IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy. > > The policy says: > > "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of > these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further > documentation." > > So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they never > end up with more than a /29 *total* > > 3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29 > > Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be > extended to a /30. > > When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that word > *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we should somehow > correct this. > > New suggested text would be: > > "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request > extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing further > documentation." > > With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go that > route and draft the policy change proposal? > > Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a threat > to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this small change? > > Thank you very much, Jan Zorz > > > -- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten at elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]