Moin,
am 06.11.25 um 15:42 schrieb jordi.palet--- via address-policy-wg:
[…]
In my experience […] when an ISP has difficulties to obtain the
prefix size they believe they need for their network […] they
don’t bother to keep trying to fight with the RIR, they pass
"the ball" to the customers: So instead of providing them what
they initially though is the right prefix size, for example /48,
they will reduce it to a /56 or even worst /60.
[…]
We tried to fix the policy a few times to make easy the justification,
and didn’t worked. I will be happy if we can find a magic wording for
that, but across many years was not fixable.
[…]
3) Allowing /28 will allow more LIRs to provide /48 to end-sites
instead of longer prefixes which is really bad. […]
4) Allowing /28 will solve the problem for a few or many, I
really don’t think “to how many" is the key.
If amending the policy is not having the intented effect towards more
liberal allocations, maybe it's not the policy text that is in error?
Then, DTAG got a /23, so obviously it's possible to get a smaller prefix
based on (supposedly) documented need.
But which end-site has a use case for 65k /64 networks? DSL, Cable and
Fiber ISPs at least over here hand out /59 to /56 to (residential) customers,
i. e. 32 to 256 possible /64 networks per (residential) CPE.
After all, I don't see a compelling reason for the proposed change; if
the issue is a too strict handling of requests for a smaller prefix than
/29, then explicit wording that this is ok with the community if the need
is documented needs be added.
Therefore still opposing this policy proposal,
-kai
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
