Christopher Morrow wrote:
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).
HD ratio and all related documentations have existed for quite some time already. If they would have read the docs they would have understood what it meant and also gotten the reason why they asked for the 200+ rule in the first place.
[..] 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>.
I can fully agree with this and it is definitely something that one might want to push into the RIRs. I actually hope that most ISP's do realize that they might become a bit larger in a few years, fortunately there is the 7 adjacent /32's that can be used for sizing up quite a bit. The only thing then is to hope that only the aggregate ends up in BGP. Greets, Jeroen