On 10-dec-03, at 10:28, leo vegoda wrote:
http://lacnic.net/en/chapter-4.html http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/ipv6-address-policy http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02
In fact, we have a shorter and easier to read document giving details of minimum allocation lengths. It was produced at the request of the routing community and can be found at:
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html>
We update it when we receive a new block from the IANA.
Ok, that's good, but it doesn't fix the problem that the list of documents above _seems_ authoritative and says it's ok to filter at /32.
I don't think it's clear that the wording in the IPv6 policy document should be improved. It's a bit ambiguous at the moment. We're keen to help improve the text.
And this isn't just theory: I'm sitting behind an ISP that filters out the /48 for the F root server.
(You don't mention micro allocations by the way, but unless I'm mistaken you guys do give those out sometimes.)
We assign small networks to IXPs.
The document has the following in it reflecting this:
CIDR block Smallest RIPE NCC Smallest RIPE NCC
Allocation Assignment
2001:0600::/23 /35 /48Again, if people feel that the text published needs to be improved then please let us know. We don't want to publish anything ambiguous or misleading. We're happy to improve text whenever people indicate improvements can be made.
Regards,
-- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager