Not necessarily. There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for APNIC where you can request a second allocation should you need it for a variety of justification.
For example: disparate non-connected networks under a different AS's. This is the one that is bothering me at the moment. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - On 2/02/11 3:05 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said: >>> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is >>>within >>> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 >>>times >>> the normal request rate... that would be a "rush". >> >> Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes? > >More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an >initial allocation and requiring more. People asking for the first >one just indicates initial adoption rates. > >Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression >that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for >an extended period of time. If that is not true, then that's a flag. > > >-- >-george william herbert >george.herb...@gmail.com >