On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Raphael Ho wrote: First this assumes /56 which would be better at /48, but, I realize this isn't a one-size fits all and there is not universal agreement on this. It's 65,536 sites at /48 each. This isn't about conserving IPv6 resources? The policy is quite thoroughly aimed in the opposite direction offering very liberal allocations to ISPs that have any significant infrastructure and want larger allocations.
customers or some that even have fewer than 3,000 homes passed in their entire market). The default remains at /32 and it requires a special request by an ISP to get the smaller block.
in order to facilitate self regulation rather than requiring the RIR to sit in judgment on who was worthy of a fee reduction. If the community here would rather offer discounted /32s to smaller ISPs, I have no problem with that approach. The /36 really is ancillary to the primary intent of this policy which is to make it clear that ISPs can right-size their IPv6 allocation liberally to blocks which are much larger than their immediate need and allow for long-term planning and sane aggrigable allocations and sub-allocations across their networks and give liberal blocks to customers as well. Owen
|
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature