My Question:
Does the application need to meet both condition B & C, or only one of the conditions?
If they only need to meet one of the condition, then it becomes:
IPv6 portable assignment can be justified by a reasonable technical justification indicating why
IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable
Then I believe the condition is too relaxed, what can be interpreted as 'reasonable technical justification ',
is 'difficult to renumber' a reasonable justification?
2) IN part 4. Details:
" E. In order to minimise routing table impacts:
(C) Any subsequent request ...must be accompanied by information
demonstrating:
(iii) How the additional assignment would be managed to
minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table. "
My Question:
How can an organization manage their announcent to minimise the growth of the global IPv6 routing table?
I think what an organization can do is to aggregate as much as possible,
and that will only make a few entries more or less in the routing table,
but the popular use of /48 portable assignments will make aggregation
less possible, which may prudce a lot of routes, this is not because
of the few routes of the assignments, but because of the
inability to aggregate to a large block (i.e. /32)
Regards
Terence Zhang
CNNICeg