Dear Cynthia,
Thank you for raising this topic.
We are seeing more requests from organisations that want separate /48 PI
assignments for different locations. We approve these requests if the
policy requirements are met - primarily that their different routing
requirements are documented.
One of the best ways to do this is through an addressing plan. While I
can't discuss the specifics of your case on the mailing list, I can
state that it wasn't the physical locations that made your request
unique. Feel free to contact me offline if you would like any further
clarification around the policy requirements as they apply to your
situation.
It's also worth noting that if an LIR wants to request a second /29,
they would need to provide justification in this case as well.
Of course, there's always the option to propose a policy change if the
current policy appears too strict or in need of improvement, and I am
always available to help people get started with this.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
On 27/02/2019 11:08, Cynthia Revström wrote:
Hi Gert,
As I attempted to explain this was 3 separate uses that required
separate announcements.
- Cynthia
On 2019-02-27 11:05, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:47:04AM +0000, Krasimir Ganchev via
address-policy-wg wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Cynthia, policies are too strict and
require justification which doesn't allow expansion over time and is
just based on immediate needs.
All that especially in the era of exhausted IPv4 is practically
unbelievable.
No offense of course, just the reality.
This claim is just not true.
There might be some cases where expectations and grandeur plans do not
match reality, and in this cases it's reasonable that the NCC is strict
and will not hand out a /19 to someone who can fulfill all their
expected
needs with a /32.
There are other cases where the NCC is asking lots of questions, and
maybe
there are cases where the NCC is too strict. So we need to talk
about these
and see if it's "lack of reasonable documentation on the user side" or
"annoying interpretation on the NCC side".
OTOH, a /48 for an end-user site or a /29 for an ISP is pretty huge
(we have not even extended our /32 to a /29 as we assume that we will
never manage to fill the /32) - and documented reality shows that *if*
you need more, you can get it today.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair, and IPv6 user from day one, where the
policies were
*much* stricter than today
