Hi Leo,
I'm happy to provide some clarification here.
On 20/10/2017 00:55, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Marco Schmidt wrote:
[...]
Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification"
is now in the Review Phase.
I am neither speaking for or against the proposal but would like
to ask to a question to clarify my understanding.
The proposal states:
"Although the IPv6 address space is huge, it's still finite.
Users only needing a /48 (or less) for their organisation would
also block a full /29 prefix when forced to become LIR which
seems unproportioned."
But some years ago, the RIPE NCC stated that it was using a
bisection approach to allocate from its /12:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-July/006176.html
Is that still the case and if it is, it would be good to
understand how each new /32 allocation blocks a /29.
I had understood that defined reservations were no longer
necessary for new allocations because of the changed approach to
allocating address space.
The RIPE NCC currently reserves a /26 for every allocation up to a /29.
For allocations larger than a /29, the next three bits are reserved.
This is based on a policy requirement that the RIPE NCC should maximise
the potential for subsequent allocations to be contiguous with previous
allocations:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684#aggregation
I hope this clarifies.
Kind regards,
Andrea Cima
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
