On Dec 19, 2007 5:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
"new" as in "We already have one, but we actually didn't really know what we where requesting, now we need more"
We got our current block in 2000 (or earlier, I don't know for sure, but 2000 at the latest). So yes, we didn't know what we were doing back then. Then again, I'd say nobody knew back then.
I'd say it's fair to bet that quite a few folks in all regions pursued ipv6 allocations more than 3-5 years ago when the policy was essentially '/32 per provider, simply show a business plan for providing services to 200+ customers in the next N years' (without much in the way of planning or proof-of-planning).
That is exactly what it is for. Then again, if you actually had *PLANNED* your address space like you are supposed to when you make a request you could have already calculated how much address space you really needed and then justify it to the $RIR. In case you have to go back to ask the $RIR for more you already made a mistake while doing the initial request...
The world tends to change in 7 years. You seem to like bashing people for not knowing future policy and changes 7 year ahead of time, which I think it quite sad.
in the case of allocation policy for ipv6 things have changed significantly in the last 2-3 years certainly. It's probably also important to look further in the future than the current RIR policy decision process requires. ARIN/RIPE (atleast) have a 2 year planning horizon for LIR allocations, this isn't sufficient for ipv6 which is supposed to last significantly longer and be as limited in prefix/entity as possible. Some large providers are attempting to plan 5-10 years out for address policy if possible, not everyone has that luxury, but in the end we (internet routing community) want limited prefixes/org that means planning horizons have to be adjusted up from 2yrs to <something else>. -Chris